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 16th September 2020, 01:32 PM   #201
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,450
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I'd like to see some evidence of that. These trans bathroom panic-mongers spend a lot of time worrying about trans invaders in the ladies room, but trans-men rarely get a mention.
That would be because transmen aren't male. And the overwhelming majority of sexual offenders are male.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 16th September 2020, 01:58 PM   #202
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,633
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Like I said, **** those dumb chicks who think they deserve rights. Don't they know they don't count as much as males do? Who the **** cares if their rights get taken away, they don't deserve them anyway, they're just worthless ******* females...
Quite right - we gave you the damned vote, not STFU!

I wonder if some guys perversely support extreme trans rights just because it claws back some of the rights women fought for? Going by people who vote for someone they detest just to piss off people they detest more, it wouldn't surprise me at all.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 16th September 2020, 02:02 PM   #203
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,633
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
These trans bathroom panic-mongers spend a lot of time worrying about trans invaders in the ladies room, but trans-men rarely get a mention.
Nonsense.

This series of threads has discussed it many times, and each time I've noted that trans men probably have the most to fear when using the bathroom of their chosen gender.

Their safety gets ignored by the extreme position of trans women demanding the right to use women's spaces, instead of the sensible option of non-binary rest/changing rooms.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 16th September 2020, 02:07 PM   #204
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,633
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
That would be because transmen aren't male. And the overwhelming majority of sexual offenders are male.
Hey, it's only 98.2% or so. No big deal.

What amuses me most is the utter refusal of the extreme trans women to accept any kind of middle ground.

You'd think that having been on the margin for centuries, the middle would look pretty attractive, but nope, gotta catch 'em all*.


*Would "Pokemon" be a good new descriptive word for trans women who don't have medical intervention? Seems to work on a couple of levels.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 16th September 2020, 03:01 PM   #205
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,747
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Yes, the most sacred right of all, the right to not be around trans male people.
You *do* realize that the set of people from whom they are hoping to be free in selected spaces (e.g. changing rooms) is several times larger than indicated above; like 100-200x larger. Given that knowledge, it seems highly disingenuous to narrow your focus this tightly, considering the actual size of the set of people they hope to exclude and (come to think of it) considering that you are also a member of that group.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 16th September 2020 at 03:09 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 16th September 2020, 03:12 PM   #206
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,747
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
I realize that not everyone agrees on the terms for sex (male/female) and gender (man/woman) but we can either argue about terminology or agrue about issues. Issues are more interesting.
Amen!
__________________
"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 16th September 2020, 03:37 PM   #207
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 23,318
Five pages in one day? And at part 4 already? I currently have a strong stake in this issue but can't force myself to slog through the detritus that I'm sure is clogging these threads.

My great-nephew (20 yo) has recently decided to go this route. He's been my protege of sorts since he was about 8 years old. Apparently he's been thinking along the lines of transitioning for a couple years, and I had no clue whatsoever. I had only found out through my gossipy sister about a month ago, and last night was the first time I'd seen him in months, at a family outing for his brother's birthday. His hair was down to his shoulders (quite pretty, actually) and he was wearing tomboy-ish clothes. While at the table his brother referred to him as "her" and "she" a couple times. Obviously his family is supportive. I only had a little small talk with "her" as I wasn't there very long. I know my opinion/feeling is very important to him/her, and I'm concerned that my lack of engagement may be taken badly. (I left quickly because of Covid-19 concerns, not because of this issue.)

I'm not sure how I feel about it yet, and it will take some time to deal with. S/he may be staying with me for some time in a few weeks, and I'm sure I can sort myself out then.

Unfortunately, I can't be following this thread because I know the type of stuff (arguments) I'll be reading, and it will not help at all.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.

Last edited by alfaniner; 16th September 2020 at 03:44 PM.
alfaniner 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 16th September 2020, 04:08 PM   #208
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,747
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I've been trying to talk about issues throughout the whole thread(s). I've been subjected to invective and insult repeatedly. Eventually, I run out of patience.
Speaking as someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome of these debates (ETA: aside from the vicarious joys of women's rugby) it has been my observation that the "TRA" side is quicker to resort to invective, name-calling, and shaming in order to quell their ideological opponents. Might just be this thread, though.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 16th September 2020 at 04:10 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 16th September 2020, 04:18 PM   #209
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,307
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Speaking as someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome of these debates (ETA: aside from the vicarious joys of women's rugby) it has been my observation that the "TRA" side is quicker to resort to invective, name-calling, and shaming in order to quell their ideological opponents. Might just be this thread, though.


Academics and others at British universities targeted for questioning transgender orthodoxy
Elaedith 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 16th September 2020, 04:52 PM   #210
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 12,450
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
It's shocking to me that these are almost all females who are being harassed - especially since in general, females are somewhat more supportive of trans rights than are males. The harassment seems very lopsided.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 16th September 2020, 05:23 PM   #211
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,876
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Why should we listen to you when you repeatedly dismiss the concerns and challenges faced by females as being not real or as exaggerated?

Speaking personally: I think that those challenges and concerns feature some that are real and valid, others that are invalid, and others that are potentially feasible but cannot yet be measured. I also believe that yes, female cis women (and yes, male cis men also) will have to make some concessions and give up a small section of their rights, in order to accommodate the greater good. But I say that with the belief that females in particular will need to be assured of maximum reasonable efforts being made to safeguard their physical safety*.

And to go back to my good ol' analogy (though everyone PLEASE note - again - that I am not drawing a direct-mapping comparison between race civil rights and transgender civil rights, but instead I'm ilustrating a principle only...), I can imagine a white man speaking in Alabama in around 1955:

Quote:
I have real concerns and challenges for myself, my wife and my kids, when it comes to this "equal rights for black people" stuff. Firstly, I don't want to have to sit next to a black man or woman on the bus: they will probably smell bad, and they might well try to steal my wallet or physically assault me. Secondly, I don't want black people to be allowed to attend the sorts of schools and universities that are currently open to white people only: they might be allowed to get the kind of education which will end up with them competing for my job or my kids' future jobs. Thirdly, I don't want black people being given proper voting rights: I think all white people can forsee exactly the horrific consequence of that!

I think you'll all agree that these concerns of mine are totally valid: I might have to sit next to a thieving black person on the bus; a black person might end up doing me or my kids out of a job; and state & federal government might end up becoming chaotically bad and causing me and my family real harm. I rest my case.

* For example, to use the well-worn chestnut of the gym changing rooms example, I would expect local and national laws to enforce things like the installation of multiple panic buttons in the women's changing rooms, and maybe even also the installation of CCTV in women-only spaces, to be viewable by accredited female members of staff.
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 16th September 2020, 05:34 PM   #212
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,876
Oh and the white guy in 1950s Alabama forgot to add:

Quote:
My wife is only 5'1" tall, and she's of very slender build. She has to take the bus into work and back each day. Yet they're talking of allowing a situation where, for example, a 6ft powerfully-built young black man would be allowed (yes, allowed!) to sit right alongside her on a small two-person bench seat on the bus.

I hardly need tell anyone of the obvious danger this would place my wife in. We all know that young black men are sexually deviant and that most of them also beat their own women. I therefore have serious - and entirely valid - concerns that my wife now risks getting either sexually or physically assaulted while travelling on the bus. Heck, the driver might not even notice, and if most of the others on the bus are also black, they'll probably do whatever they can to prevent any intervention. In fact, they might well be cheering on the man who's assaulting my wife - we all know that they're not far short of being savages.
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 16th September 2020, 05:38 PM   #213
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,747
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
And to go back to my good ol' analogy...
Has anyone pointed out the obvious flaw in your analogy yet?
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 16th September 2020 at 05:42 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 16th September 2020, 06:01 PM   #214
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,876
Oh gosh, now the white guy in 1950s Alabama is complaining:

Quote:
I keep telling "black rights" supporters about my real and valid concerns over my wife's safety: where before only white people were allowed to sit next to her on the bus, now it seems that any muscle-bound black deviant will be allowed to place his body right up against hers. And they have the audacity to reply that yes, it's possible that my wife might occasionally be more at risk of physical or sexual assault on the bus, but that this (apparently!!) is a price worth paying for granting black people equal rights. I can't quite believe that these "black rights" people are seemingly prepared to force white women into accepting increased risk like this.
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 16th September 2020, 06:03 PM   #215
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,876
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Has anyone pointed out the obvious flaw in your analogy yet?

Maybe read the part in parentheses in the original post of mine.

(As I thought though, it didn't take long for a "response" like this to materialise )
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 16th September 2020, 06:12 PM   #216
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,876
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove breach of rule 0 and rule 12
here's what I'm trying to illustrate:

In the Southern states of the US in the 1950s and 1960s, it's an unarguable truth that the white population had to accept certain negative consequences (to white people) as an outcome of civil rights legislation. For example, as I said above, it's unarguable that single white women on municipal buses had to place themselves at increased personal risk - whether real or perceived - as a direct consequence of black people gaining the right to sit right alongside white people on a double bus seat. And there are the other sorts of things that I mentioned in my first post.

So what I was saying was this: yes, sometimes it's an inevitable consequence of civil rights laws/rules that one group of people are going to find themselves in a worse situation (and perhaps with a diminuation of their own rights) as a consequence of those laws/rules. And while this is obviously undesirable, it's deemed by a mature, liberal, educated society to be a price worth paying in order to promote a greater good.


I thought the analogy was almost laughably easy to understand for what it was. I shouldn't keep overestimating, I suppose. My bad.

Last edited by Agatha; 17th September 2020 at 05:03 AM.
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 16th September 2020, 06:49 PM   #217
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,633
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I thought the analogy was almost laughably easy to understand for what it was.
It is, as long as one buys into your central theme that oppressing an entire race is equivalent to stopping a tiny minority of women dictating to the rest of them how to act.

I don't, so I think your analogy is laughably stupid.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist 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 16th September 2020, 06:52 PM   #218
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,747
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
...before only white people were allowed to sit next to her on the bus, now it seems that any muscle-bound black deviant will be allowed to place his body right up against hers.
Are you trying to say that black passengers on mass transit are indeed more dangerous than white ones? If so, then your analogy might just work, since we can (without bigotry) say that males are incontrovertibly more dangerous than females, given violent crime stats from, well, anywhere on Earth at any point in human history.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 16th September 2020 at 07:14 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 16th September 2020, 07:13 PM   #219
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,130
Refresh my memory at what point in the Civil Rights movement did we go "Wait I've got, black people have to sit at the back of the bus, white people have to sit at the front of the bus, but everyone just gets to define what race they are, that's the same thing as equality right?"
__________________
- 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 16th September 2020, 08:07 PM   #220
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 11,385
When I first heard of TERFs I looked at some articles linked (here?) and saw an aspect of the situation that I haven't seen brought up here (though it might have been). Some lesbians were claiming they were being labeled transphobic because they were not willing to have sex with someone with balls and a penis. It must have been a somewhat theoretical argument as no one has suggested they literally owe sex to any given individual - or have they? Were people who said these things attacked as bigots?

Maybe that was just a minority shooting off their mouths, but I would think that this ultimate test might be a bridge too far.

It stood out, I think, because this wasn't an article about intersex people or shared restrooms or dressing rooms. It went right to who you could properly decline to have sex with. Like someone was pushing this as a talking point.
Minoosh 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 16th September 2020, 08:08 PM   #221
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 11,385
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Are you trying to say that black passengers on mass transit are indeed more dangerous than white ones? If so, then your analogy might just work, since we can (without bigotry) say that males are incontrovertibly more dangerous than females, given violent crime stats from, well, anywhere on Earth at any point in human history.
Blacks couldn't control themselves. White men could.
Minoosh 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 16th September 2020, 08:49 PM   #222
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,876
Hahaha more people completely miss the point. Bravo!


(Maybe read post #244 again for the explanation)
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 16th September 2020, 09:00 PM   #223
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,876
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Are you trying to say that black passengers on mass transit are indeed more dangerous than white ones? If so, then your analogy might just work, since we can (without bigotry) say that males are incontrovertibly more dangerous than females, given violent crime stats from, well, anywhere on Earth at any point in human history.

I am saying that

a) the perception among white people in the Alabama of the 1950s very much was that black people - and young black men in particular - were significantly more dangerous than white people.

b) and indeed if one were to look at conviction statistics for violet crimes in the Alabama of the 1950s, one would almost certainly find a highly disproportionate representation of black males - and it's not all that difficult to see how white people could have used those sorts of statistics to support their perception in (a) above.

So therefore

c) White people in 1950s Alabama most probably were of the belief that allowing young black males to sit right next to white girls or women was placing those white girls/women at a potential risk - where no such risk had previously existed (ie when black people had to give up the whole bench seat if a white person wanted to sit down on a crowded bus)


Ergo:

This is a situation where one group of people (here: white women) were, purely owing to black civil rights reforms - potentially being placed into situations which carried significantly higher perceived risk to them.


.....which is precisely analagous to the issues around (say) trans women in women's changing rooms. In fact, I'll repeat the previous paragraph above, with the relevant terms substituted in:


This is a situation where one group of people (here: cis women) were, purely owing to transgender rights reforms allowing trans women into women's changing rooms - potentially being placed into situations which carried significantly higher perceived risk to them.
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 16th September 2020, 09:03 PM   #224
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,876
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Refresh my memory at what point in the Civil Rights movement did we go "Wait I've got, black people have to sit at the back of the bus, white people have to sit at the front of the bus, but everyone just gets to define what race they are, that's the same thing as equality right?"

*sigh*

Is this the product of a) ignorance of my actual point here, or b) a desire to attack any and all posts which are trying to advance the argument for transgender rights?
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 16th September 2020, 09:10 PM   #225
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,230
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Have you had a look at the study I linked upthread?
Yes. Have you had a look at my post where I explain such studies are bunk?
Quote:
Perhaps you've seen a better study on point?
Not just bunk, but dangerous bunk.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn 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 16th September 2020, 09:30 PM   #226
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,230
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
You know there are many other elements of sexual arousal than just whether or not a dude gets an erection, right?
That was what I was pointing out to d4m10n.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Sexual Arousal is a physical response, not a subjective psychological one. It's actually quite well studied.
Note that I used the word "excited" instead of "arousal" as the latter word does connote a physical response, not entirely connected to one's sexual preference. I was challenging d4m10n on their claim that sexual excitement can be objectively measured by sticking a bunch of wires to someone's little willy.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
For goodness sake, don't you two know anything about sexual arousal at all?


Quote:
erections in males and vaginal wetness in women are only one sign of sexual arousal among several, and are not always present
Is that not the exact same thing I was arguing?
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn 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 16th September 2020, 09:37 PM   #227
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Hahaha more people completely miss the point. Bravo!


(Maybe read post #244 again for the explanation)
Actually, the flaw in your analogy is different than what has been pointed out.

The civil rights movement in the 1950s sought to end segregation. It did so by showing that segregation was both unfair and unjustified.

The current topic wants to maintain segregation, but alter the reasoning and the parameters of the segregation.

In this discussion, neither side wants to get rid of segregation. There are a few people who have suggested replacing segregated spaces with unisex spaces and both sides have objected.

One side wants to keep the segregation for what they believe to be the original reason, which they consider to still be valid.

The other side wants to maintain the segregation, but alter the parameters and modify the justification.

It's significantly different from your analogy. Both sides favor a segregated bus.

The interesting thing is that if we left it at that point, the two sides are close enough together that they should be able to find common ground, in my opinion. It's really the self-ID part that is a hindrance. The first group are willing to allow trans women into their spaces as long as there is some sort of criteria as well as an effective means to challenge a violator. This is the part that you are on the same page with the first group, which is why I keep saying that you and Emily's cat are not that far apart. (You also agree on sports.)

The other part of the argument is of course terminology. There are, objectively, four groups (ignoring gender fluid/non-binary):

Group 1: sex: male identifies as man
Group 2: sex: female identifies as woman
Group 3: sex: female identifies as man
Group 4: sex: male identifies as woman

Each of these groups is valid and equal (meaning no group is lesser to another).

For whatever reason, its not acceptable to have four categories with equal value. So we have to argue about which groups get paired into sets in what circumstance and what terminology to use for the superset and subsets.

I don't care a whole lot about this, but I can understand why both sides consider it important. There's a certain word that carries heavy symbolism for both groups.
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 16th September 2020, 09:40 PM   #228
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,875
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
Actually, the flaw in your analogy is different than what has been pointed out.

The civil rights movement in the 1950s sought to end segregation. It did so by showing that segregation was both unfair and unjustified.

The current topic wants to maintain segregation, but alter the reasoning and the parameters of the segregation.

In this discussion, neither side wants to get rid of segregation. There are a few people who have suggested replacing segregated spaces with unisex spaces and both sides have objected.

One side wants to keep the segregation for what they believe to be the original reason, which they consider to still be valid.

The other side wants to maintain the segregation, but alter the parameters and modify the justification.

It's significantly different from your analogy. Both sides favor a segregated bus.

The interesting thing is that if we left it at that point, the two sides are close enough together that they should be able to find common ground, in my opinion. It's really the self-ID part that is a hindrance. The first group are willing to allow trans women into their spaces as long as there is some sort of criteria as well as an effective means to challenge a violator. This is the part that you are on the same page with the first group, which is why I keep saying that you and Emily's cat are not that far apart. (You also agree on sports.)

The other part of the argument is of course terminology. There are, objectively, four groups (ignoring gender fluid/non-binary):

Group 1: sex: male identifies as man = Man
Group 2: sex: female identifies as woman = Woman
Group 3: sex: female identifies as man = Trans Man
Group 4: sex: male identifies as woman = Trans Woman

Each of these groups is valid and equal (meaning no group is lesser to another).

For whatever reason, its not acceptable to have four categories with equal value. So we have to argue about which groups get paired into sets in what circumstance and what terminology to use for the superset and subsets.

I don't care a whole lot about this, but I can understand why both sides consider it important. There's a certain word that carries heavy symbolism for both groups.
Doesn't seem that hard to do.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With todayís Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz 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 16th September 2020, 09:48 PM   #229
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I am saying that

a) the perception among white people in the Alabama of the 1950s very much was that black people - and young black men in particular - were significantly more dangerous than white people.
Except that the argument is not that trans people are dangerous. The argument is that males are dangerous and that self-ID creates a loophole that can be exploited to allow (non-trans) men into spaces where women currently feel safe from them. Hence the willingness to accept trans women with a diagnosis and an obvious effort at transition.

Quote:
b) and indeed if one were to look at conviction statistics for violet crimes in the Alabama of the 1950s, one would almost certainly find a highly disproportionate representation of black males - and it's not all that difficult to see how white people could have used those sorts of statistics to support their perception in (a) above.[\quote]

So therefore

c) White people in 1950s Alabama most probably were of the belief that allowing young black males to sit right next to white girls or women was placing those white girls/women at a potential risk - where no such risk had previously existed (ie when black people had to give up the whole bench seat if a white person wanted to sit down on a crowded bus)


Ergo:

This is a situation where one group of people (here: white women) were, purely owing to black civil rights reforms - potentially being placed into situations which carried significantly higher perceived risk to them.


.....which is precisely analagous to the issues around (say) trans women in women's changing rooms. In fact, I'll repeat the previous paragraph above, with the relevant terms substituted in:


This is a situation where one group of people (here: cis women) were, purely owing to transgender rights reforms allowing trans women into women's changing rooms - potentially being placed into situations which carried significantly higher perceived risk to them.
See the thing is, they aren't concerned about letting trans women into the changing rooms. They are concerned with letting males into women's changing rooms, but are willing to accept exceptions for trans-women who meet a criteria and show discretion in their behavior. (You know, the same thing you advocate.)
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 16th September 2020, 09:56 PM   #230
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Doesn't seem that hard to do.
I was just defining the groups. I really don't care what you call them. How about Slitherin, Griffendor, Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw?

Woman is a magic word that has significant value to various groups. Much more value than I place on the word "man." I'm not going to stake a position on that because to me, a word is just a representation of a concept, not a thing in and of itself.
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 16th September 2020, 09:57 PM   #231
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,230
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
It's really the self-ID part that is a hindrance. The first group are willing to allow trans women into their spaces as long as there is some sort of criteria as well as an effective means to challenge a violator.
Unless those spaces require people to show their ID cards to enter, self-ID laws have absolutely nothing to do with them. Sex/gender segregated spaces such as public restrooms and changing rooms essentially are run on self-identification already. What the movement for self-identification for changes in civil gender is about is just the M or F on one's birth certificate and ID cards. I find it hard to believe there many people would fake their gender identity just for the privilege of having customs officers ask them "why is there a M/F on your passport when you are clearly a F/M ?"
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn 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 16th September 2020, 10:00 PM   #232
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,991
Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
Sex/gender segregated spaces such as public restrooms and changing rooms essentially are run on self-identification already.
No, they are not. As a practical matter, they are mostly run on self-presentation, which isn't the same thing as self-identification.
__________________
"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 16th September 2020, 10:01 PM   #233
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,253
Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
Unless those spaces require people to show their ID cards to enter, self-ID laws have absolutely nothing to do with them. Sex/gender segregated spaces such as public restrooms and changing rooms essentially are run on self-identification already. What the movement for self-identification for changes in civil gender is about is just the M or F on one's birth certificate and ID cards. I find it hard to believe there many people would fake their gender identity just for the privilege of having customs officers ask them "why is there a M/F on your passport when you are clearly a F/M ?"
I suspect this is where things will end up. And I'm not joking.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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 16th September 2020, 10:02 PM   #234
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,230
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
The argument is that males are dangerous and that self-ID creates a loophole that can be exploited to allow (non-trans) men into spaces where women currently feel safe from them.
It does not create a loophole. The loophole already exists.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn 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 16th September 2020, 10:10 PM   #235
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,991
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I suspect this is where things will end up. And I'm not joking.
At my gym, you need to show ID to enter the building. They don't specifically check before you enter the changing room, but they know who you are.
__________________
"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 17th September 2020, 02:11 AM   #236
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,876
Just dropping in to leave this here for all you lovely people (re the Maya Forstater case):

https://www.insider.com/uk-ruling-le...-women-2019-12

xxx
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 17th September 2020, 02:34 AM   #237
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,512
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Just dropping in to leave this here for all you lovely people (re the Maya Forstater case):

https://www.insider.com/uk-ruling-le...-women-2019-12
Old news


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post12930485

With a link to the full judgement.
Aber 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 17th September 2020, 02:35 AM   #238
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,253
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Just dropping in to leave this here for all you lovely people (re the Maya Forstater case):

https://www.insider.com/uk-ruling-le...-women-2019-12

xxx
This will go to higher courts without doubt.

Itís ridiculous to be fired for stating a fact and this ruling wonít stand.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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 17th September 2020, 03:35 AM   #239
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,876
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Old news


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post12930485

With a link to the full judgement.


Oh I didn't doubt that it had been discussed way upthread as well. Just offering a reminder, that's all - and also because it seemed somewhat germane to my having pointed out that certain groups must (unfortunately) sometimes be prepared to accept a worse situation for themselves in the cause of the greater good
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 17th September 2020, 03:36 AM   #240
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,876
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
This will go to higher courts without doubt.

Itís ridiculous to be fired for stating a fact and this ruling wonít stand.


Well, I guess we'll see.


(I wonder if you can get fired from your job for tweeting something like "Homosexuals are unnatural and against God".......?)
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 08:47 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.