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 transgender incidents , transgender issues , transgender rights

Reply
Old 15th September 2020, 12:28 PM   #1
Boudicca90
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Murrieta, CA
Posts: 203
Trans Women are not Women 4

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
No obviously we can't.

This is what is making this fundamentally different from the push for Civil Rights for women, minority races, or sexual orientations.

This is the first time "support" has included "Agree with my own completely internal viewpoint."
I would say that belief that homosexuality is real is based on agreement that people can have sexual attraction to the same sex, even though it is an internal viewpoint. If I were to be challenged on this, I wouldn't be able to conclusively prove the attraction or prove it to the satisfaction to someone who was skeptical to begin with. And that recognition that it is normal and real is something we had to fight for to be seen as valid and not some sexual deviants.

Same thing is happening here. The more you try to deny the similarities, the more you point them out further.


Mod InfoThread continued from here. You can quote or reply to any post in that or previous parts.
Posted By:zooterkin

Last edited by zooterkin; 15th September 2020 at 12:59 PM.
Boudicca90 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 15th September 2020, 12:28 PM   #2
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,636
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I agree that ending sex segregation would be a significantly larger threat. And I will provisionally agree that transwomen with sufficiently low testosterone levels aren't a threat to most women's sports.

I don't agree that transwomen in general are not a threat to womens sports, especially when it comes to self-id alone being the arbiter for what constitutes a woman. We've already repeatedly seen transwomen not just break, but entirely shatter, women's records in a variety of sports. Transwomen aren't winning proportionally to their representation in those sports - they're dominating well beyond a proportional level. They're winning at rates that would be expected of a man competing against women.
I agree. A washed up male athlete has a sex change and is woman of the year. A second tier, mediocre male fighter self identifies as female and injures female fighters in a bid to be female mma champion.

Biological man claims to be female and shatters records in female track events.

Yeah, transwomen aren't taking anything away from women.

Rowling is correct. You can't deny the science. Well you can but you would be wrong.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 15th September 2020, 12:29 PM   #3
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,311
Originally Posted by Boudicca90 View Post
More and more I am coming to the realization that you can't.

Denying that we are women as much as cisgender women ultimately means there is a limit to how much you will support us. I see it time and time again, "I support trans rights, except..." There is always an "except" for so-called allies that can't accept us as we are.

If we aren't women, then we aren't deserving of the same rights and protections that women have. And anybody who has that view is not an ally, no mater how much you pretend to be.
What rights and protections are you lacking?
What rights and protections are you asking for?

Do you believe that a female biology and the lived experience of being a female in this society has nothing at all to do with gender?

If so, what attributes constitute the gender of woman, such that ciswomen and transwomen generally have them in common, but cismen and transmen lack those attributes?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 15th September 2020, 12:34 PM   #4
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,042
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Concussions are common for fighters (regardless of sex). Skull fractures are not common.


Quote:
An amateur Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fighter has died after suffering a brain injury during a fight in the U.K.
https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/female...ry?id=67125913

Quote:
During the controversial fight between her and Yan, Karolina suffered a terrible eye injury and cracked skull which led her straight to the hospital.
https://popularsuperstars.com/female...n-yan-video/2/

Quote:
Miesha Tate suffers broken orbital bone at UFC 183, then blown tire en route to Super Bowl 49
https://www.mmamania.com/2015/2/1/79...er-bowl-49-mma

Quote:
UFC star Molly McCann has undergone successful surgery to repair the orbital bone she broke in her win over Priscila Cachoeira on Saturday.
https://talksport.com/sport/mma/5132...njury-win/amp/

Seems common enough to me. Skulls do be crackin though.

Just for fun, a before and after pic of a woman MMA fighter.

https://talksport.com/wp-content/upl...lity=100&w=680

It's a brutal sport, but the fighters seem to enjoy it. I can't explain it, I'd rather not get punched.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 15th September 2020 at 12:39 PM.
SuburbanTurkey 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 15th September 2020, 12:35 PM   #5
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,311
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Maybe you should ask whether a trans woman who has been doing HRT for years has an inherent, insurmountable advantage.

In Fox's case, the evidence seems to point to "no".
Fox was a fairly out of shape middle aged male-bodied person, much older than female fighters in their prime, and with much lower level of conditioning. You keep saying she was a "mediocre" fighter, even though her fight record was materially better than everyone she fought, and the other females in her experience category.

So an older person with lesser conditioning and training managed to notably outperform other people in their rank who were in peak condition and prime age... and you are certain that her male physiology had nothing at all to do with that?

Let's just skip right over her exuberant joy at personally causing serious injury her competitors, and her celebration of other fighters being injured... and the entire background of her becoming interested in MMA in the first place, because she would get to fight females specifically.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 15th September 2020, 12:40 PM   #6
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,042
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Fox was a fairly out of shape middle aged male-bodied person, much older than female fighters in their prime, and with much lower level of conditioning. You keep saying she was a "mediocre" fighter, even though her fight record was materially better than everyone she fought, and the other females in her experience category.

So an older person with lesser conditioning and training managed to notably outperform other people in their rank who were in peak condition and prime age... and you are certain that her male physiology had nothing at all to do with that?

Let's just skip right over her exuberant joy at personally causing serious injury her competitors, and her celebration of other fighters being injured... and the entire background of her becoming interested in MMA in the first place, because she would get to fight females specifically.
Yes, yes, yes. All trans women are misogynistic men just wanting to infiltrate women's space and attack. I've read your work.

Tell you what, having permanent surgery and living as a woman for over a decade is quite the commitment to a bit. Gotta respect the scam /s
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 15th September 2020 at 12:41 PM.
SuburbanTurkey 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 15th September 2020, 12:47 PM   #7
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,311
Originally Posted by Boudicca90 View Post
I would say that belief that homosexuality is real is based on agreement that people can have sexual attraction to the same sex, even though it is an internal viewpoint. If I were to be challenged on this, I wouldn't be able to conclusively prove the attraction or prove it to the satisfaction to someone who was skeptical to begin with. And that recognition that it is normal and real is something we had to fight for to be seen as valid and not some sexual deviants.

Same thing is happening here. The more you try to deny the similarities, the more you point them out further.
I think there are some differences. We can measure sexual attraction. The observable effects of physical arousal are fairly well documented. The claim to be attracted to people of the same sex can be observed as true by anyone at all. The argument given for homosexuality being classed as a deviancy was that it was "unnatural", not that it wasn't observable fact.

Additionally, the cultural change required to stop stigmatizing homosexuality was minimal. It required protection against discrimination in employment and services (which should be available to anyone on pretty much any attribute or belief), it required a removal of religious perspective from the definition of marriage from a legal viewpoint.

It did not require removing a definition of sexuality, or a redefinition of attraction at all. It didn't obligate other people to change their beliefs. It didn't require other people to accept an internal feeling that was in opposition to observable reality.

In contrast, gender identity cannot be measured. And the physical indicators of sex, which are measurable, must be ignored and made unimportant for gender identity to be accepted. It relies on an internal view that is undefined and cannot be explained in any objective fashion.

Transgender people should have legal protection from discrimination in employment and services. But that's not all that is being asked for.

The definition of gender adopted by trans activists requires that the definition of "woman" have no meaning. It requires enforcement of language use. It requires that everyone alter their beliefs and their understanding so that male-bodied people who present as male be accepted as "just as much of a woman" as a female-bodied person who presents as female.

Affirmation of your internal identity requires me to erase my identity as female.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 15th September 2020, 12:48 PM   #8
Boudicca90
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Murrieta, CA
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
But none of that matters to you, and you don't believe it's a big deal. Females who express those concerns... well, they're just full of hate, right? None of those things are important to "real women" who are, actually, males. It's fine if you dismiss the views of females as not being important. It's fine if you ignore their voices and cast them as "overreacting". They're just typical hysterical girls, right?

It's not important to you if females are endangered and set back... so long as male people make gains.
No, you are right. These issues you claim are issues either aren't real issues, or are so insignificant in the grand scheme of things that they don't matter when compared to increasing our civil rights.

It is just a few women like you who don't view us as women and delude yourselves into thinking we are taking away your rights and much like Trump supporters, have convinced yourselves that you are a "silent majority" of sorts.

Ultimately the law is increasingly on our side and that is really the only thing that maters.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
In short, most women fully support transsexuals, but are much less supportive of self-identified transwomen. For those most part, I think most women would be supportive of Boudicca for example - she's shown herself to be a generally considerate and caring person, who doesn't want to make other people uncomfortable, and is actively in the process of truly living as a woman and undergoing treatment to alter her appearance to conform to a female phenotype as much as possible. Even if we disagree with some of her views, I think most of us support her right to express herself however she wishes and to live her life the best she can.
Just stop this right now. You have not been supportive of me one bit, so don't pretend like you support me now! You deny my existence as a woman and therefore will constantly fight against my desire to be considered equal to you. You hold womanhood up as a sacred ideal that only the chosen can achieve, and I reject that view.

Your distinction of transgender vs. transsexual tells me a lot. You are fine with "transsexuals", in other words people who transitioned decades ago and who were driven to think of themselves as never being able to truly be who they are. Transsexual is not a term that is used any more in the trans community due to the negative association with those kinds of views and old and outdated research and therapy.

The old way of treating us was to view ourselves as flawed and sick, almost like being trans is a sin we have to fight against and living as a woman is a reprieve from that. That's why the increased research over time led to the change of the condition being viewed as a physiological mismatch than a mental disorder. And a big part of that was the realization that we are the gender we feel we are, not pretending to be that gender.
Boudicca90 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 15th September 2020, 12:50 PM   #9
Boudicca90
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Murrieta, CA
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Maybe you should ask whether a trans woman who has been doing HRT for years has an inherent, insurmountable advantage.

In Fox's case, the evidence seems to point to "no".
And I can answer based on my own experience being on HRT for 3 years: No.
Boudicca90 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 15th September 2020, 12:52 PM   #10
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,311
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Yes, yes, yes. All trans women are misogynistic men just wanting to infiltrate women's space and attack. I've read your work.

Tell you what, having permanent surgery and living as a woman for over a decade is quite the commitment to a bit. Gotta respect the scam /s
Oh get off your strawman. Not all transwomen are misogynists. Boudicca certainly isn't. If you'd actually read my posts, you would not be accusing me of a position I don't hold. Nor did I in any way suggest that Fox is scamming anyone.

On the other hand, you seem to be implying that it's impossible for Fox to be misogynistic at all. Additionally, you seem to be implying that Fox's male physique did NOT give her a material advantage over natal women.

It's annoying and downright childish that when you're presented with support for a male physiology conferring a meaningful advantage, you can't counter in any civil fashion, but instead fall back on insinuation and insult.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 15th September 2020, 01:00 PM   #11
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,012
Boudica99.

Would you say it is fair to summarize your position as one that feels that that not mentally associating the term "woman" with a transwoman (or equivalent for a trans-male) makes it impossible to be your ally or fully support you?

Simply put I'm asking that if I don't literally see you as a woman, even if I objectively treat both with all standards of basic respect and dignity and go out of my at least try to account for all your wishes and desires (use of pronouns for instance, you are welcome in any "spaces" you wish, etc) since even if I disagree I'm not a try-hard edge-lord whose goal in life is to be the biggest jerk I can and still be "technically correct" but if asked directly in an purely intellectual space if I mentally consider you a woman I might, depending on exact circumstances, say "no" I would still be the bad guy?

//This is a 100% fair, open, and honest question with no snark, subterfuge, or ulterior motive.//
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue 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 15th September 2020, 01:01 PM   #12
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,042
Being classified as "other" is the first step to second class citizenship.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey 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 15th September 2020, 01:02 PM   #13
Boudicca90
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Murrieta, CA
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Affirmation of your internal identity requires me to erase my identity as female.
And legalizing gay marriage will erase straight marriage...
Boudicca90 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 15th September 2020, 01:03 PM   #14
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,311
Originally Posted by Boudicca90 View Post
No, you are right. These issues you claim are issues either aren't real issues, or are so insignificant in the grand scheme of things that they don't matter when compared to increasing our civil rights.
They are insignificant to YOU. They are NOT insignificant to natal women! Why the hell do you think that your desires are more important than those of natal women?

Originally Posted by Boudicca90 View Post
Just stop this right now. You have not been supportive of me one bit, so don't pretend like you support me now! You deny my existence as a woman and therefore will constantly fight against my desire to be considered equal to you. You hold womanhood up as a sacred ideal that only the chosen can achieve, and I reject that view.
That's baloney. I support a very large amount of what you seek. I don't "deny your existence as a woman", I deny your existence as female.

On the other hand... you deny that the lived experience of females is important in any way at all. You deny that gender stereotypes are repressive to females. You deny that the biological realities of sex have anything at all to do with how females are treated. You deny the ongoing discrimination and second-class status of females in society. You've expressed that the concerns of females are "overreacting" and "not a big deal". You've shut out the voices of females.

You want to be accepted as being "just as much of a woman" as females are... while simultaneously dismissing females as unimportant and not worthy of your concern. You want to be accepted by females as an equal, while simultaneously insisting that we don't matter.

You can't even be bothered to actually list out what rights you are lacking and what you're asking for. You refuse to even provide an explanation of what the word "woman" means within your framework.

Instead, you DEMAND that females accept you as one of us, without question, without evidence... and that females bow to your DESIRES and make our own needs secondary to yours. And if we push back on your insistence that you - a male - should be allowed to get female scholarships and female recognition and all of the other things that females have been scraping out in our quest to equity in the world... you label us and attack us. And while you personally haven't done so, many, many of your "allies" feel entitled to attack females verbally, to harass them, to wish them death, and to threaten them with rape.

I don't hold womanhood as some sacred ideal. I do, however, think it has actual real-world meaning and is not some ephemeral internal feeling that defies description and must be accepted on faith alone.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 15th September 2020, 01:06 PM   #15
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,311
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Being classified as "other" is the first step to second class citizenship.
Being defined as a "feeling in your head" is the first step to dehumanization.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 15th September 2020, 01:07 PM   #16
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,721
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Being classified as "other" is the first step to second class citizenship.
This is such a weird thing to say when we're talking about individuals who had all the legal rights granted by a notably patriarchal political system to members of the male sex in the first place.

What rights do trans women lack which cis men actually have?
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 15th September 2020 at 01:09 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 15th September 2020, 01:11 PM   #17
Boudicca90
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Murrieta, CA
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Boudica99.

Would you say it is fair to summarize your position as one that feels that that not mentally associating the term "woman" with a transwoman (or equivalent for a trans-male) makes it impossible to be your ally or fully support you?

Simply put I'm asking that if I don't literally see you as a woman, even if I objectively treat both with all standards of basic respect and dignity and go out of my at least try to account for all your wishes and desires (use of pronouns for instance, you are welcome in any "spaces" you wish, etc) since even if I disagree I'm not a try-hard edge-lord whose goal in life is to be the biggest jerk I can and still be "technically correct" but if asked directly in an purely intellectual space if I mentally consider you a woman I might, depending on exact circumstances, say "no" I would still be the bad guy?

//This is a 100% fair, open, and honest question with no snark, subterfuge, or ulterior motive.//
I honestly do.

I didn't feel that way before, but the more this conversation goes on, the more I realize even people who we would consider strong allies always seem to have somewhere where they draw the line. When we are saying there is no line to draw.

I respect anybody who tries to respect us, but if you call us all the correct pronouns but still support segregating us in any way (and I think I have shown I am more than willing to compromise to a certain degree), then you really don't support us.

I really do think not believing we are women leads to not treating us like women, even if you don't think you are doing it.
Boudicca90 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 15th September 2020, 01:13 PM   #18
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,721
Originally Posted by Boudicca90 View Post
…we are saying there is no line to draw.
Someone said upthread that trans women have more of an obligation to cover themselves than cis women—in the context of changing rooms in which full nudity is generally considered tolerable. Is that not drawing a line?
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 15th September 2020 at 01:15 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 15th September 2020, 01:14 PM   #19
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,042
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
This is such a weird thing to say when we're talking about individuals who had all the legal rights granted by a notably patriarchal political system to members of the male sex in the first place.

What rights do trans women lack which cis men actually have?
This is an international forum. The experience of trans women in some nations that recognize their rights is not universal. Children are still regularly spirited away to barbaric countries to receive conversion "therapy", which is little more than psychological torture.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey 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 15th September 2020, 01:15 PM   #20
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,818
Originally Posted by Boudicca90 View Post
I would say that belief that homosexuality is real is based on agreement that people can have sexual attraction to the same sex, even though it is an internal viewpoint. If I were to be challenged on this, I wouldn't be able to conclusively prove the attraction or prove it to the satisfaction to someone who was skeptical to begin with. And that recognition that it is normal and real is something we had to fight for to be seen as valid and not some sexual deviants.

Same thing is happening here. The more you try to deny the similarities, the more you point them out further.


Mod InfoThread continued from here. You can quote or reply to any post in that or previous parts.
Posted By:zooterkin

This is in line with something I wrote here the other day. I suspect that because most (hopefully all) people don't nowadays give a second thought to the concept of homosexuality being an authentic lived condition, they haven't stopped to think, to realise, that the notion of a person being sexually attracted to people of their same sex is - as you say - an entirely internalised condition. And one whose provenance is therefore impossible to prove empirically (or disprove).

Indeed, many now-outdated (thankfully) views of homosexuality - from the top down - suggested that those claiming to have sexual desires for people of the same sex were actually "normal" (heterosexual) people whose minds had for some reason developed a disorder or a deviancy which made them think they had sexual desires for the same sex - but that those feelings were not valid or authentic in & of themselves (on the basis that they were the product of this disorder or deviancy of mind....).

Which, funnily enough, is more-or-less exactly the same train of "thought" that some within this thread seem to have been following wrt transgender issues.

As you say: it's both ironic and simultaneously a) amusing & b) saddening/troubling, that in attempting to deny these sorts of similarities, certain "arguments" are in fact only serving to further demonstrate those similarities.

Last edited by LondonJohn; 15th September 2020 at 01:32 PM.
LondonJohn 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 15th September 2020, 01:16 PM   #21
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,721
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
This is an international forum.
Feel free to answer the question (from #16) for your own home nation.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
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 15th September 2020, 01:18 PM   #22
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,042
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Feel free to answer the question for your own home nation.
People could be fired for being trans until June of this year in the US.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey 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 15th September 2020, 01:21 PM   #23
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,979
Originally Posted by Boudicca90 View Post
I didn't feel that way before, but the more this conversation goes on, the more I realize even people who we would consider strong allies always seem to have somewhere where they draw the line. When we are saying there is no line to draw.
There is never no line to draw. If you think there isn't, then you just haven't thought hard enough about the subject.

Quote:
I respect anybody who tries to respect us, but if you call us all the correct pronouns but still support segregating us in any way (and I think I have shown I am more than willing to compromise to a certain degree), then you really don't support us.
Who exactly is "us"? Is Jessica Yaniv part of "us"? Is Zuby part of "us"?
__________________
"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
Ziggurat 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 15th September 2020, 01:25 PM   #24
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,721
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
People could be fired for being trans until June of this year in the US.
Okay so once again here is the question:

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
What rights do trans women lack which cis men actually have?
Given that we all celebrated the holding of Bostock v. Clayton County can you have a go at the question as of today?
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
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 15th September 2020, 01:27 PM   #25
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,311
Originally Posted by Boudicca90 View Post
I honestly do.

I didn't feel that way before, but the more this conversation goes on, the more I realize even people who we would consider strong allies always seem to have somewhere where they draw the line. When we are saying there is no line to draw.
I draw the line where the undefined and unexplainable gender that you identify as crosses into the biological sex and lived experience of females. And hell, I'm perfectly willing to share most of that with you.

It's your repeated insistence that the issues that females raise are either nonexistent or insignificant that causes me to back away from supporting you. I mean, rather than just dismissing females out of hand... how about you go ahead and provide your reasoning for which of the mentioned items below are "not real" and which are merely "insignificant" for females?

Quote:
In terms of safety, privacy, and independence, Self-Id of transwomen and forced acceptance into female spaces has resulted in:
- a genitally intact transwoman being allowed into a domestic violence shelter where that person proceeded to masturbate over the sleeping body of her female room mate
- a genitally intact transwoman sexual predator being placed in a female prison ward where she raped female prisoners with her female penis
- middle school and high school swim team members taking turns changing in a much smaller locker room because the genitally intact transwoman's right to be naked in the ladies locker room (regardless of any discomfort it caused) was viewed as more important than the girls right not to have male bodies in their locker room
- Several aestheticians being sued for refusing to wax a transwoman's balls and handle her penis

In terms of undermining progress, transwomen in general want
- to have access to scholarships and grants set aside to address inequities toward females in society
- qualify for female recognitions like "woman of the year" and similar accolades that bring attention to the value of females in the world
- count toward female quotas set by affirmative action and diversity objectives in areas where females are significantly underrepresented
- re-introducing the concept of "lady brain" which has been used to discriminate against women in science and business for hundreds of years, based on flimsy and immaterial science that has repeatedly shown to be non-determinitive and non-predictive of gender
- to compete against biological females in sports where physiology confers an unassailable advantage

In terms of erasing female identity, trans activists insist:
- sex is a social construct
- biological sex has nothing at all to do with a female identity
- the lived experience of females is unimportant as an aspect of female identity
- that the "essence of womanhood" is something internally felt that defies explanation and cannot be described or elaborated upon, but which overrides the descriptions provided by natal women
- redefined the term "woman" so that it holds no meaning at all
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 15th September 2020, 01:29 PM   #26
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,818
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I think there are some differences. We can measure sexual attraction. The observable effects of physical arousal are fairly well documented. The claim to be attracted to people of the same sex can be observed as true by anyone at all. The argument given for homosexuality being classed as a deviancy was that it was "unnatural", not that it wasn't observable fact.

Additionally, the cultural change required to stop stigmatizing homosexuality was minimal. It required protection against discrimination in employment and services (which should be available to anyone on pretty much any attribute or belief), it required a removal of religious perspective from the definition of marriage from a legal viewpoint.

It did not require removing a definition of sexuality, or a redefinition of attraction at all. It didn't obligate other people to change their beliefs. It didn't require other people to accept an internal feeling that was in opposition to observable reality.

In contrast, gender identity cannot be measured. And the physical indicators of sex, which are measurable, must be ignored and made unimportant for gender identity to be accepted. It relies on an internal view that is undefined and cannot be explained in any objective fashion.

Transgender people should have legal protection from discrimination in employment and services. But that's not all that is being asked for.

The definition of gender adopted by trans activists requires that the definition of "woman" have no meaning. It requires enforcement of language use. It requires that everyone alter their beliefs and their understanding so that male-bodied people who present as male be accepted as "just as much of a woman" as a female-bodied person who presents as female.

Affirmation of your internal identity requires me to erase my identity as female.

In the bad old days, nobody but the worst kinds of bigots and deniers were claiming that, for example, homosexual men were pretending to be sexually attracted to other men.

Rather, the claim was that a) homosexual men were genuinely sexually attracted to other men, but that b) this (genuine) same-sex attraction was the product of a mental disorder or deviancy.

In other words, those men were mentally ill, and their mental illness was manifesting itself in making them believe they were sexually attracted to other men. In other words, these were simply "normal" (ie heterosexual) men who had unfortunately become ill*.

And of course, under that misguided "analysis" of homosexuality, your tests regarding sexual arousal would indeed show that (eg) the homosexual man was genuinely sexually aroused by other men. The problems arise when it comes to ascribing those desires: in a modern, enlightened age, we now recognise that those genuine desires are an authentic, valid condition in themselves; in a previous, unenlightened age (which was not so very long ago, remember), they believed those genuine desires to be nothing but the product of a mental disorder.



* Much the same as the man believing he is King Henry VIII: it may be undeniable that the man does genuinely believe himself to be that long-dead English monarch, but in that case it's also a total certainty that this belief is the product of a mental disorder.
LondonJohn 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 15th September 2020, 01:30 PM   #27
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,311
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There is never no line to draw. If you think there isn't, then you just haven't thought hard enough about the subject.



Who exactly is "us"? Is Jessica Yaniv part of "us"? Is Zuby part of "us"?
Is Andrea Long Chu part of "us"?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 15th September 2020, 01:43 PM   #28
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,522
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Do you believe that a female biology and the lived experience of being a female in this society has nothing at all to do with gender?
I think she pretty much has to: She never lived as a woman, but still knew she was one. She never had female biology, but knew she was a woman.

Not only that, but I think she also would have to deny (or ignore) any science that might result in fact-based gatekeeping. For example, if research into chimerism reveals that some people really do have a female brain in a male body, what does that say about all the self-diagnosed transwomen who *don't*?

Last edited by theprestige; 15th September 2020 at 01:53 PM.
theprestige 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 15th September 2020, 01:45 PM   #29
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,311
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
In the bad old days, nobody but the worst kinds of bigots and deniers were claiming that, for example, homosexual men were pretending to be sexually attracted to other men.

Rather, the claim was that a) homosexual men were genuinely sexually attracted to other men, but that b) this (genuine) same-sex attraction was the product of a mental disorder or deviancy.

In other words, those men were mentally ill, and their mental illness was manifesting itself in making them believe they were sexually attracted to other men. In other words, these were simply "normal" (ie heterosexual) men who had unfortunately become ill*.

And of course, under that misguided "analysis" of homosexuality, your tests regarding sexual arousal would indeed show that (eg) the homosexual man was genuinely sexually aroused by other men. The problems arise when it comes to ascribing those desires: in a modern, enlightened age, we now recognise that those genuine desires are an authentic, valid condition in themselves; in a previous, unenlightened age (which was not so very long ago, remember), they believed those genuine desires to be nothing but the product of a mental disorder.
Contrast this with transgender people.

The claim is that transwomen genuinely are 'women', and that they genuinely 'identify as' female in their minds. Nobody can describe what 'women' means that includes both ciswomen and transwomen but does not include either cismen or transmen. Nobody can directly observe or measure the identity in question. This gender identity causes distress in people who have this inside-the-mind view of their male bodies as hosting a female identity. The treatment for his inside-the-mind disconnect between the mind and the body frequently includes dressing as the opposite sex to that of their body, adopting the stereotypical gender roles of the opposite sex, altering their bodies through significant hormone treatment which creates a life-long drug dependence, and undergoing highly invasive surgery to alter the physical appearance of their sex.

Most people agree that the distress is a real genuine experience. Most people accept that the medical transitions are the best way to alleviate that distress, and that the inside-the-mind disconnect cannot be cured.

It is insisted that it is not a disorder.

Now we're also being told that some people don't have a disconnect between their mind and their body, they have a disconnect between how other people perceive their body and how they want other people to perceive their body. We;re told that having a male body, with male phenotypical physique, and presenting as a male does not make one a man, and that a person who wishes to can obligate others to think of them as a woman in order to alleviate their social distress.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 15th September 2020, 01:57 PM   #30
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 732
A few questions for everyone and anyone:

1) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by gender? If so, what and why? If not, why not?

2) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by sex? If so, what and why? If not, why not?
TomB 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 15th September 2020, 02:00 PM   #31
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,818
But....

..... there's also objectively no way of falsifying - or, for that matter, proving - the (now-discredited) model of homosexuality which holds that:

a) homosexual people have genuine sexual desires for other people of their same sex,

but that

b) those sexual desires are the product of a mental disorder (rather than being a genuine, valid condition in themselves)


You can empirically measure (a) - thought it's actually irrelevant.

What you cannot measure empirically is (b) - which is the only measure that counts.


So, one might ask: what was it that made the accepted explanation of same-sex desires change from the above model, to the one we accept today - in which those desires are explained not as the product of a mental disorder, but instead as genuine, valid desires in themselves?

And there's no other way to consider that question other than by employing the same sorts of methods by which the model of explaining transgenderism has now evolved (i.e. to the point where mainstream mental health expertise considers it to be an authentic, valid condition rather than the product of a mental disorder).
LondonJohn 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 15th September 2020, 02:04 PM   #32
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,522
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
A few questions for everyone and anyone:

1) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by gender? If so, what and why? If not, why not?

2) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by sex? If so, what and why? If not, why not?
1) Yes. Competitive sports. For biological and sociological reasons which have been discussed at length already and which I won't bother to re-hash again right now.

2) Yes. Gender. For biological and sociological reasons which have *not* been discussed at length, but have been discussed in brief, and which I might go on to develop here but I'm not making any promises.
theprestige 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 15th September 2020, 02:09 PM   #33
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,721
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
1) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by gender? If so, what and why?
Yes. My local big box stores have separate clothing depts. for feminine and masculine clothing, and this strikes me as convenient for nearly everyone. A separate area for clothing especially tailored for those pursuing unisex and/or non-binary fashions would be appreciated as well.

Originally Posted by TomB View Post
2) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by sex? If so, what and why?
Yes. The most obvious example would be women's health clinics which specialize in OB/GYN, e.g. Whole Woman's Health or comparable clinics dedicated to men's health issues. Other examples would be Women's Rugby and the WNBA in North America, because a single open class for top-level sport would exclude most female competitors.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 15th September 2020 at 02:12 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 15th September 2020, 02:16 PM   #34
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,721
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
But....

..... there's also objectively no way of falsifying - or, for that matter, proving - the (now-discredited) model of homosexuality which holds that:

a) homosexual people have genuine sexual desires for other people of their same sex
LOL wut
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
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 15th September 2020, 02:26 PM   #35
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,818
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Yes. My local big box stores have separate clothing depts. for feminine and masculine clothing, and this strikes me as convenient for nearly everyone. A separate area for clothing especially tailored for those pursuing unisex and/or non-binary fashions would be appreciated as well.

Yes. The most obvious example would be women's health clinics which specialize in OB/GYN, e.g. Whole Woman's Health or comparable clinics dedicated to men's health issues. Other examples would be Women's Rugby and the WNBA in North America, because a single open class for top-level sport would exclude most female competitors.


I'm in agreement with all of this.

And incidentally - as I've stated before - I also believe that those competitive sports* in which anatomy and/or physiology play a competitive factor** should be sex-segregated. I know that this is not Boudicca90's position, though I'm not sure whether or not there's any difference of opinion on this matter within either the transgender community or those lobbying for transgender rights. I do however believe it very highly likely that the bodies administering all of the relevant sports will - sooner or later - instigate measures to exclude transgender competitors.


* Though only for mid-level (eg local region, state) and high-level (national, international) sports - outside of these levels of competion, I believe transgender people should be encouraged to compete in sports with their trans gender, and that they should be welcomed and accepted for it.

** As I've already argued: I believe it to be obvious that someone who has, for example, gone through childhood and adolescence as a cis male has already developed, on average, a comparatively advantageous (compared with female cis women) anatomy - bone size, bone strength, bone density - and physiology - heart size and strength, lung size and strength, muscle mass/nature/strength). And none of these biological areas of competitive advantage will be significantly altered by any form of gender transition.
LondonJohn 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 15th September 2020, 02:28 PM   #36
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,818
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
LOL wut


Perhaps you ought to include all of what I've written, when considering your response.

(Particularly, of course, the Part (b) which you omitted. But also the explicit clarification elsewhere within my post)

LOL, indeed


ETA: oh, and my prior post #26, which explains things further stlll...

Last edited by LondonJohn; 15th September 2020 at 02:30 PM.
LondonJohn 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 15th September 2020, 02:31 PM   #37
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,721
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Perhaps you ought to include all of what I've written, when considering your response.
Can we agree that there are relatively objective ways of objectively measuring sexual excitement in (gay) men?
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
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 15th September 2020, 02:37 PM   #38
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,818
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Can we agree that there are relatively objective ways of objectively measuring sexual excitement in (gay) men?


Errr.... yes.

Once again: read my post. Properly this time. Together with what I wrote a mere handful of posts upthread.

You'll find that I explicity make this very point. More than once.

You'll also find that the part I'm saying cannot be measured objectively is the underlying driver of that same-sex sexual excitement. So, in the case of gay men, one cannot empirically measure whether that (genuine, provable) same-sex sexual attraction is or is not either a) the product of a mental disorder, or b) an authentic, valid condition in and of itself.


If you'd only read my post(s) properly in the first place, this to-and-fro need never even have been required.


ETA: You might wish to consider the line in my post where I write (my bolding for emphasis):

"You can empirically measure (a) - thought it's actually irrelevant."



Last edited by LondonJohn; 15th September 2020 at 02:40 PM.
LondonJohn 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 15th September 2020, 02:41 PM   #39
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,721
LondonJohn - Did you not mean this part of your post to apply to part (a) of said post:
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
there's also objectively no way of falsifying - or, for that matter, proving
If you did, why? If not, seems a bit confusing as written. What makes any given disorder valid or invalid?

ETA: Proposition (a) is about real world responses to stimuli, but (b) looks like a cultural value judgement to me. Mind the is/ought gap.

ETA2: Which real world people actually claim (b) is true? I'm not sure James Dobson even goes this far.

ETA3: If everyone here agrees on (a) why bring it up?
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 15th September 2020 at 02:55 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 15th September 2020, 02:52 PM   #40
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,818
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
LondonJohn - Did you not mean this part of your post to apply to part (a) of said post:

If you did, why? If not, seems a bit confusing as written.

Only in your own misplaced reading of what I wrote, and your selection of only part of it. Jesus.

Once again, what I wrote was this:

..... there's also objectively no way of falsifying - or, for that matter, proving - the (now-discredited) model of homosexuality which holds that:

a) homosexual people have genuine sexual desires for other people of their same sex,

but that

b) those sexual desires are the product of a mental disorder (rather than being a genuine, valid condition in themselves)


You can empirically measure (a) - thought it's actually irrelevant.

What you cannot measure empirically is (b) - which is the only measure that counts.



There is not one iota of ambiguity there - unless you read it in a faulty way, that is.

In addition to everything else I've written in response to you on this, you might also want to consider my use of the word "but" in the middle of (a) and (b). This is in fact a useful "signifier" word. Had I used "and", the overall meaning could have been interpreted in a different way. But I didn't.

And.... you might, once again, want to consider the bit immediately below, where I explicitly explain that while you can measure (a) - the validity of same-sex sexual desires - you cannot measure (b) - the underlying reasons why homosexuals hold such desires (which, as I point out, is the only important thing when trying to consider the underlying psychosexual reasons behind homosexuality)
LondonJohn 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
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 09:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.