IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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.
Reply
Old 29th July 2022, 11:25 AM   #201
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Are you serious or are you taking the piss with this?
Taking the piss, obviously. Faced with the conundrum of whether "I identify as ____" means entitlement to arbitrary and unjustified privileges, or means you do you, and having no solution, taking the piss is the only option left.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
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 29th July 2022, 11:27 AM   #202
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Well, since there's no such thing as a fuchsia cat with telepathic powers, I think you're trying to say that claiming to be a woman is similarly claiming to be something that doesn't exist. But, since women do in fact exist, I think your example may not be the best for what you're trying to say.
I think you're tap-dancing around having to give a coherent response. But I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'll give it another go. One more chance for you to engage in the essence of the question in good faith.

If I self-declare myself to be 5'10" tall, even though the tape-measure says I'm 5'0" tall... does my self-identity as a tall person obligate the person running the roller coaster to let me on when the minimum height requirement is 5'4"?
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 29th July 2022, 11:30 AM   #203
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,939
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Are you serious or are you taking the piss with this?

YOU are the one who claimed it does not happen, YOU are the one who asserted that the hypothetical was not possible. Then when given MULTIPLE examples of bearded males claiming to be women... YOU are the one who tap-danced away with some semantic No True Scotsman claim that somehow those don't qualify because... unspecified reasons.

This is pretty basic critical thinking.

You: X does not happen
Me: Here are multiple examples of X happening
You: Well, that doesn't count, you cherry picked and besides those are actually X and I don't accept them...


That's odd, I don't remember saying anything about cherry picking, nor do I remember limiting shuttit's statement just to the beard.


And, going back it looks like no, I never did either of those things. So...since you guys want to claim big muscular bricklayers with full beards are claiming to be women, you still have to find an example of that.
wareyin 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 29th July 2022, 11:37 AM   #204
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
That's odd, I don't remember saying anything about cherry picking, nor do I remember limiting shuttit's statement just to the beard.


And, going back it looks like no, I never did either of those things. So...since you guys want to claim big muscular bricklayers with full beards are claiming to be women, you still have to find an example of that.
What the hell is your sticking point? Is it the lack of evidence that they are literally bricklayers? Is that what you're hanging your hat on?

I provided several examples of sizeable males with full bears, all of whom claim to be women. You dismissed those examples and hand-waved them away... and you're hear again claiming you've never been given an example.

So I can only conclude that you're playing shallow semantic games and deciding they don't count, because the really important part is the "bricklayer" element. FFS, this is an absurd argument.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 29th July 2022, 11:38 AM   #205
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,939
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I think you're tap-dancing around having to give a coherent response. But I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'll give it another go. One more chance for you to engage in the essence of the question in good faith.

If I self-declare myself to be 5'10" tall, even though the tape-measure says I'm 5'0" tall... does my self-identity as a tall person obligate the person running the roller coaster to let me on when the minimum height requirement is 5'4"?
And I think you guys are tap-dancing around with the "obligations" nonsense. Your previous self-identified muslim would be requesting that you not serve them pork, not telling you that you had to serve anyone else who wasn't muslim halal only food. Your "obligated" rollercoaster here? No amusement park is "obligated" to let anyone on a ride if they choose to refuse you access.

You're mixing up your own entitlement and your desire to avoid common courtesy to others into a stinking pile, and telling us it's a rosebush. Er, fuschia cat with telepathic powers.

Whatever. When your only obligation is "don't be a dick" and you're whining about obligations, cry me a river.
wareyin 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 29th July 2022, 11:41 AM   #206
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,939
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
What the hell is your sticking point? Is it the lack of evidence that they are literally bricklayers? Is that what you're hanging your hat on?

I provided several examples of sizeable males with full bears, all of whom claim to be women. You dismissed those examples and hand-waved them away... and you're hear again claiming you've never been given an example.

So I can only conclude that you're playing shallow semantic games and deciding they don't count, because the really important part is the "bricklayer" element. FFS, this is an absurd argument.
No, the "bricklayer" part that shuttit used was meant to imply big muscles. I can see how you're a bit confused because I only literally said "big muscular bricklayer" and you have that weird reading problem where you can't see the first 2 adjectives, so I'll give you a pass.
wareyin 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 29th July 2022, 11:44 AM   #207
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
And I think you guys are tap-dancing around with the "obligations" nonsense. Your previous self-identified muslim would be requesting that you not serve them pork, not telling you that you had to serve anyone else who wasn't muslim halal only food. Your "obligated" rollercoaster here? No amusement park is "obligated" to let anyone on a ride if they choose to refuse you access.
And yet... females are being told they cannot refuse access of males to female-only spaces. Female prisoners are being forced to share cells with fully intact male prisoners against their will. Females are being forced to accept male-bodied competitors who went through male puberty and have male advantages as competitors in female sports.

How about you step back and give that some though?

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You're mixing up your own entitlement and your desire to avoid common courtesy to others into a stinking pile, and telling us it's a rosebush. Er, fuschia cat with telepathic powers.
My "entitlement" to not be forced to see a male's genitals without my consent? My "entitlement" to not be viewed while naked by a male without my consent? Do you think it's "common courtesy" to give free access to flashers and peeping toms? Do you think it's "common courtesy" to allow males to violate female boundaries on their say-so?

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Whatever. When your only obligation is "don't be a dick" and you're whining about obligations, cry me a river.
Your version of "don't be a dick" seems to require that females allow dicks and balls in their presence in intimate spaces regardless of their boundaries. You and I seem to have extremely different ideas of what constitutes "don't be a dick".
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 29th July 2022, 11:45 AM   #208
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
No, the "bricklayer" part that shuttit used was meant to imply big muscles. I can see how you're a bit confused because I only literally said "big muscular bricklayer" and you have that weird reading problem where you can't see the first 2 adjectives, so I'll give you a pass.
So you concede figurative language. Gotcha.

What is your reasoning for dismissing the examples I provided of fairly muscular males with beards claiming to be women? Can you reiterate exactly why the selection of beardy males who claim to be women somehow do not qualify as beardy males who claim to be women?
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 29th July 2022, 11:56 AM   #209
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,939
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
And yet... females are being told they cannot refuse access of males to female-only spaces. Female prisoners are being forced to share cells with fully intact male prisoners against their will. Females are being forced to accept male-bodied competitors who went through male puberty and have male advantages as competitors in female sports.

How about you step back and give that some though?
Given that only one of those things is a thing which happens, I have given that one some thought. The "male advantages" claim fails when you actually look at any of the cases brought, though. I recall a trans woman winning a swimming event was one that a lot of bigots made hay with, but they ignored the fact that the trans woman actually lost more events than she won.


Originally Posted by casebro View Post
My "entitlement" to not be forced to see a male's genitals without my consent? My "entitlement" to not be viewed while naked by a male without my consent? Do you think it's "common courtesy" to give free access to flashers and peeping toms? Do you think it's "common courtesy" to allow males to violate female boundaries on their say-so?
Ah, yes, the often claimed communal showers and full nudity in bathrooms you guys love to pretend happen. Quite a convincing argument, if you ignore the bit that, like your big, muscular, calloused hand laborers claiming to be women, it's simply made up.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
our version of "don't be a dick" seems to require that females allow dicks and balls in their presence in intimate spaces regardless of their boundaries. You and I seem to have extremely different ideas of what constitutes "don't be a dick".
Using made up scenarios and making preposterous claims in order to not allow trans people to use the bathroom in public does fall under the "don't be a dick" umbrella, sure.
wareyin 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 29th July 2022, 12:00 PM   #210
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,939
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
So you concede figurative language. Gotcha.

What is your reasoning for dismissing the examples I provided of fairly muscular males with beards claiming to be women? Can you reiterate exactly why the selection of beardy males who claim to be women somehow do not qualify as beardy males who claim to be women?
Oh, I know it was figurative language. I know that shuttit, like you, wants everyone to associate trans women with big muscular menial labor type men who don't really think they're women, they just want to get into women's bathrooms. shuttit didn't even try to claim it actually happened, while you decided that if you could cherrypick (there you go, I used the word for you) one single bit of the entire scenario and find an example of that tiny aspect, you got to claim that all the rest had been proven.
wareyin 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 29th July 2022, 12:21 PM   #211
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
And I think you guys are tap-dancing around with the "obligations" nonsense.
Not me! I asked a clear, concise question about self-ID: Does it or should it impose obligations on others? If there's any tap-dancing being done, it's by those who are trying to avoid answering the question.

Now, when it comes to the obligations imposed by transgender self-ID, a certain amount of tap-dancing is required, since there's already a thread dedicated to that and related issues. But I think I can say this: When it comes to transgender self-ID, we could recognize using preferred pronouns as an obligation. But the obligations associated with this self-ID go much further than that. If you administer a sports league, you are obligated to let transwomen compete with women. If you administer a prison, you are obligated to house transwomen with women. If you are tallying up women's representation in business and government, you are obligated to count transwomen as women. These are the rights that trans-rights activists are advocating. These are the rights that are in some cases being pushed into public policy (and pushed back against, in other cases).

So this raises the question: Is that how self-ID should work? Should self-ID impose obligations like this on others?

Maybe you don't think self-ID should work that way. If so, we're in broad agreement, and have no need bicker.

It kind of seems like you think self-ID should not impose obligations on others. It seems this way because you're dancing around the question, and trying to dismiss or minimize the scope of obligations some believe self-ID should impose. I think if you agreed with them, you would just say so outright. I think you'd say, yes, self-ID should impose obligations on others - far beyond the simple courtesy of not serving pork to a Muslim! And I think you'd explain why you think self-ID should work this way.

So.

Should self-ID impose obligations on others? If so, to what extent? Do others get to impose any qualifications, or must they be obliged without appeal or review?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
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 29th July 2022, 12:27 PM   #212
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Given that only one of those things is a thing which happens, I have given that one some thought. The "male advantages" claim fails when you actually look at any of the cases brought, though. I recall a trans woman winning a swimming event was one that a lot of bigots made hay with, but they ignored the fact that the trans woman actually lost more events than she won.
Oh FFS. If you want to spout your beliefs as if they're righteous, you could at least do the bare minimum of knowing what is actually happening in the world, instead of just dismissing things as made up because you don't like them and don't want to believe them.

https://transequality.org/sites/defa...Fact-Sheet.pdf
Changes to Title IX require that federally funded schools allow transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity... and since gender identity is entirely self-declared, it means that male students who say they're trans are allowed by law to use the female restrooms and locker rooms... and that the female students have NO RIGHT to deny them access. There have been several legal battles over the last couple of years, brought forth by female students because they were uncomfortable having male-bodied students in with them while they were naked. In at least one of those cases, the judge rules that female students have "no right to visual privacy".

As for prisons... are you living under a rock?
https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/law...sgender-inmate
https://www.yahoo.com/video/transgen...225931569.html
https://www.iwf.org/2021/03/18/repor...ing-as-female/
https://www.womensliberationfront.or...ists-confirmed

As for Lia Thomas's competitiveness, they only "lost more than they won" if you include the races they lost while competing against males. There have now been several well-researched studies demonstrating that there is a definite male advantage in the majority of sports. So much so that several sporting organizations are requiring that any competitor who has gone through a male puberty is not allowed to compete in the female sport. All of which was research that didn't need to be done, because everyone with an inkling of sense knows that males are stronger, faster, and have higher endurance than females.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Ah, yes, the often claimed communal showers and full nudity in bathrooms you guys love to pretend happen. Quite a convincing argument, if you ignore the bit that, like your big, muscular, calloused hand laborers claiming to be women, it's simply made up.



Using made up scenarios and making preposterous claims in order to not allow trans people to use the bathroom in public does fall under the "don't be a dick" umbrella, sure.
Wow. There are so many cases of male who claim a transgender identity being inappropriately nude in front of females who don't want to see their junk that I can only assume you're being willfully ignorant. Your seemingly callous disregard for the safety, dignity, and rights of females is really something.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 29th July 2022, 12:30 PM   #213
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Oh, I know it was figurative language. I know that shuttit, like you, wants everyone to associate trans women with big muscular menial labor type men who don't really think they're women, they just want to get into women's bathrooms. shuttit didn't even try to claim it actually happened, while you decided that if you could cherrypick (there you go, I used the word for you) one single bit of the entire scenario and find an example of that tiny aspect, you got to claim that all the rest had been proven.
Your engagement does not seem to be in good faith. You said it doesn't happen, I demonstrated that it does happen.

But you still seem to be arguing that it doesn't happen... but if it does happen, it's not a big deal, those nasty females are just making **** up so they can be dicks to the people with dicks.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 29th July 2022, 12:32 PM   #214
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Now, when it comes to the obligations imposed by transgender self-ID, a certain amount of tap-dancing is required, since there's already a thread dedicated to that and related issues. But I think I can say this: When it comes to transgender self-ID, we could recognize using preferred pronouns as an obligation. But the obligations associated with this self-ID go much further than that. If you administer a sports league, you are obligated to let transwomen compete with women. If you administer a prison, you are obligated to house transwomen with women. If you are tallying up women's representation in business and government, you are obligated to count transwomen as women. These are the rights that trans-rights activists are advocating. These are the rights that are in some cases being pushed into public policy (and pushed back against, in other cases).
Oh, no, there's no concern at all! Wareyin has mansplained to us poor, foolish, hysterical females and the males who support our rights that this doesn't happen, it's all made up by evil females who just don't know their place.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 29th July 2022, 12:33 PM   #215
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,939
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not me! I asked a clear, concise question about self-ID: Does it or should it impose obligations on others? If there's any tap-dancing being done, it's by those who are trying to avoid answering the question.

Now, when it comes to the obligations imposed by transgender self-ID, a certain amount of tap-dancing is required, since there's already a thread dedicated to that and related issues. But I think I can say this: When it comes to transgender self-ID, we could recognize using preferred pronouns as an obligation.
Yeah, that's really the only obligation out of this bunch that could possibly apply to you, isn't it?
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
But the obligations associated with this self-ID go much further than that. If you administer a sports league, you are obligated to let transwomen compete with women.
And since trans-women have to be tested in these sports for things like testosterone, this isn't a self-ID issue at all, now is it?
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If you administer a prison, you are obligated to house transwomen with women.
Yet again, not a self-ID issue, and a pretty silly obligation to bring up even if it was, as it wouldn't apply to you, would it?
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If you are tallying up women's representation in business and government, you are obligated to count transwomen as women.
Your "obligation" would be to....alter the parameter you're counting? Oh, my, god, that is quite a biggie, isn't it? Instead of x number of women in business and government, I now have to add....what, 2 to that number?
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
These are the rights that trans-rights activists are advocating. These are the rights that are in some cases being pushed into public policy (and pushed back against, in other cases).

So this raises the question: Is that how self-ID should work? Should self-ID impose obligations like this on others?

Maybe you don't think self-ID should work that way. If so, we're in broad agreement, and have no need bicker.

It kind of seems like you think self-ID should not impose obligations on others. It seems this way because you're dancing around the question, and trying to dismiss or minimize the scope of obligations some believe self-ID should impose. I think if you agreed with them, you would just say so outright. I think you'd say, yes, self-ID should impose obligations on others - far beyond the simple courtesy of not serving pork to a Muslim! And I think you'd explain why you think self-ID should work this way.

So.

Should self-ID impose obligations on others? If so, to what extent? Do others get to impose any qualifications, or must they be obliged without appeal or review?
So...come up with an obligation that doesn't fall under "don't be a dick" and might actually apply to you, and then we can see if self-ID should impose that obligation on you. So far, you want to imply this horrible imposition but can't even come up with anything that isn't petty or trivial. When you're not just calling trans people mentally ill by implication, that is.
wareyin 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 29th July 2022, 12:45 PM   #216
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,939
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Oh FFS. If you want to spout your beliefs as if they're righteous, you could at least do the bare minimum of knowing what is actually happening in the world, instead of just dismissing things as made up because you don't like them and don't want to believe them.

https://transequality.org/sites/defa...Fact-Sheet.pdf
Changes to Title IX require that federally funded schools allow transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity... and since gender identity is entirely self-declared, it means that male students who say they're trans are allowed by law to use the female restrooms and locker rooms... and that the female students have NO RIGHT to deny them access. There have been several legal battles over the last couple of years, brought forth by female students because they were uncomfortable having male-bodied students in with them while they were naked. In at least one of those cases, the judge rules that female students have "no right to visual privacy".
So we've gone from having to compete against to not being able to force trans women to use the men's locker room?

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I'm just going to go out on a limb and point out that "women's liberation front" saying an anonymous prisoner claimed something happened while authorities denied it might not be the most reliable source.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
As for Lia Thomas's competitiveness, they only "lost more than they won" if you include the races they lost while competing against males. There have now been several well-researched studies demonstrating that there is a definite male advantage in the majority of sports. So much so that several sporting organizations are requiring that any competitor who has gone through a male puberty is not allowed to compete in the female sport. All of which was research that didn't need to be done, because everyone with an inkling of sense knows that males are stronger, faster, and have higher endurance than females.
Your sporting organizations who have made those changes did so due to bigoted public outcry rather than your "so much research", though, because that research is nowhere near as conclusive as you wish it were.

And no, Lia Thomas lost against women, as well. Which, for some unknown reason, doesn't sink in that maybe having once had more testosterone years ago but no more now isn't the advantage bigots want to make it out to be.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Wow. There are so many cases of male who claim a transgender identity being inappropriately nude in front of females who don't want to see their junk that I can only assume you're being willfully ignorant. Your seemingly callous disregard for the safety, dignity, and rights of females is really something.
Is it something, though? Or is any callous disregard you see simply me not hating the people you want me to hate?
wareyin 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 29th July 2022, 12:54 PM   #217
Olmstead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,128
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post

Your sporting organizations who have made those changes did so due to bigoted public outcry rather than your "so much research", though, because that research is nowhere near as conclusive as you wish it were.

And no, Lia Thomas lost against women, as well. Which, for some unknown reason, doesn't sink in that maybe having once had more testosterone years ago but no more now isn't the advantage bigots want to make it out to be.
If she's losing against female athletes at all, it means that she's a rather average swimmer.
Olmstead 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 29th July 2022, 01:01 PM   #218
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 9,939
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I'd like to circle back to this bit, actually. Do you honestly think that "self-ID" trans women are more of a risk to commit rape in prison than the women who have female genitals? Which happens more often? Or is it that if a woman is raped by someone with female genitals it's ...not a real rape, or not as bad, or something? Because, sure, rape in prison is wrong, but going after trans people over it when they commit such a tiny, tiny percentage of the rapes sure seems like you don't care about the rapes except as an excuse to bash trans people.
wareyin 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 29th July 2022, 01:29 PM   #219
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I'd like to circle back to this bit, actually. Do you honestly think that "self-ID" trans women are more of a risk to commit rape in prison than the women who have female genitals? Which happens more often? Or is it that if a woman is raped by someone with female genitals it's ...not a real rape, or not as bad, or something? Because, sure, rape in prison is wrong, but going after trans people over it when they commit such a tiny, tiny percentage of the rapes sure seems like you don't care about the rapes except as an excuse to bash trans people.
I'm always a bit aghast when I see this argument trotted out. And I note that it is ALWAYS trotted out by a male. Your argument pretends that there's some kind of parity involved, as if the frequency and the aggression involved in sexual offenses committed by males and females are somehow comparable.

About 16% of male prisoners are in for sexual offenses. About 2% of female prisoners are in for sexual offenses. About 50% of transwomen are in for sexual offenses.

99% of sexual offenses are committed by males, and 95% of the victims of sexual offenses are female. 1 in 6 females has been the victim of attempted or complete rape. Every single female I know over the age of 15 has been the victim of a sexual assault, and several below that age.

Rape by a male results in forcible penetration and possible pregnancy. Rape by a female does not. It's great for you, a male, to decide that the risk of pregnancy and internal damage from forcible penetration isn't that big a deal, because some females are bad too. But as a female, I reject your right to dictate to me - or any other female - that we MUST be subjected to FURTHER predation by males, against our will, in prisons where we have no recourse to escape.

But go on. Keep dismissing the actual real events that actually really harm females and actually really violate their boundaries, and declaring it "hate" that females don't submit to the wants of males.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 29th July 2022, 01:37 PM   #220
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
About 16% of male prisoners are in for sexual offenses. About 2% of female prisoners are in for sexual offenses. About 50% of transwomen are in for sexual offenses.
You're forgetting these prisoners are women. It is transphobic of you to assume they would offend at the rate of men, even if they are in prison for sex crimes against women.
shuttlt 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 29th July 2022, 01:39 PM   #221
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,677
Your regular reminder that in many jurisdictions, including where I live, the crime of rape can only be committed by a man. The crime is defined as penetrating the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with a penis, without consent. So it's always jarring when people start talking about "women who rape".

There have historically been a few women who were convicted of rape, but invariably this has been as an accessory to a rape which a man carried out with his penis - for example holding the victim down.

Recently the number of "women" convicted of rape has skyrocketed. However, when you follow up the reports of these crimes, invariably you discover that the "woman" in question has a penis of his own. Adding actual rapes committed by trans-identifying males to the tiny numbers of rapes where a woman was involved in the assault has skewed the crime figures out of all recognition.

And the criminal justice system records all these as "female" crimes. You actually have to find the press reports about the case and check for either a photograph of an obviously male person, or somewhere in the article, often the last paragraph, the information that the perpetrator was previously known as David something.

This is yet another disastrous consequence of self-identification. We no longer have crime statistics that tell us the number of crimes committed by actual women. Crimes committed by men who identify as women (often doing this after they have been arrested) are massively skewing the numbers.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 29th July 2022, 01:54 PM   #222
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Your regular reminder that in many jurisdictions, including where I live, the crime of rape can only be committed by a man. The crime is defined as penetrating the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with a penis, without consent. So it's always jarring when people start talking about "women who rape".
Odd that that the appendage one must have to rape has not changed, while the list of orifices that can be raped has expanded. Some things get deconstructed and some things don't.
shuttlt 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 29th July 2022, 02:13 PM   #223
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,677
Yes, you observed something similar before. At least in some jurisdictions the fundamental violation of being penetrated by a male organ (as opposed to a comparatively neutral body part such as a finger, or an inanimate object) is something legislators have apparently considered should be retained in law.

The equivalent offence where something other than a penis is used, is called "assault by penetration" and attracts the same range of sentencing options. Nevertheless it's encouraging that at least some jurisdictions continue to acknowledge the peculiarly intimate and horrifying violation experienced when a penis is used.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 29th July 2022, 02:24 PM   #224
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 28,230
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I was going to ask about that, thanks for the information.

I guess I have always accepted anyone within any church, including Catholic and Orthodox, as a Christian. Maybe they're only being polite when I get the impression they accept me likewise. Who knows?

But even there, when I dig right down, if I found that someone who claimed they were a Christian but had not been baptised at all, I'd need a really, really convincing reason why not, and right now I can't think of one.
Because the act of baptism is, in essence, a meaningless ritual that doesn't define how a person feels or what they believe?

Can a couple not be deeply devoted, in love and living together, without going throught the formal marriage ceremony?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 29th July 2022, 02:30 PM   #225
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Because the act of baptism is, in essence, a meaningless ritual that doesn't define how a person feels or what they believe?
In Anabaptist tradition (including various sectarian offspring) adult baptism is a meaningful expression of one's most deeply held beliefs.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
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 29th July 2022, 02:40 PM   #226
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Yes, you observed something similar before. At least in some jurisdictions the fundamental violation of being penetrated by a male organ (as opposed to a comparatively neutral body part such as a finger, or an inanimate object) is something legislators have apparently considered should be retained in law.

The equivalent offence where something other than a penis is used, is called "assault by penetration" and attracts the same range of sentencing options. Nevertheless it's encouraging that at least some jurisdictions continue to acknowledge the peculiarly intimate and horrifying violation experienced when a penis is used.
I think envelopment is the thing men's rights activists normally want counted as rape. This is where everything get's inconsistent, where it came to expanding the things men could do that would count as rape, it's been deconstruction all the way. When it comes to expanding it so that a woman can be guilty of raping a man, all of a sudden we are conservatives and are content to leave traditional taboos alone. When it comes to ways of being a woman, it's deconstruction all the way, when it comes to who can be a woman, all of a sudden we are conservatives again and want to hold on to the traditional meaning. The ideas being employed are just flags of convenience to promote or defend group interests.
shuttlt 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 29th July 2022, 02:50 PM   #227
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,677
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Because the act of baptism is, in essence, a meaningless ritual that doesn't define how a person feels or what they believe?

Can a couple not be deeply devoted, in love and living together, without going throught the formal marriage ceremony?

They can be deeply devoted, in love and living together, but they won't be legally husband and wife. (Or wife and wife, or husband and husband, depending.) They will not be a married couple.

In the same way someone may be an exemplary human being, living his life by the principles of Christ's teaching, but if he isn't baptised, one is at least entitled to wonder why not.

I'm sure your deeply devoted, in love and living together couple will have their reasons for not being a married couple, but nevertheless they are not a married couple. Similarly, whatever the reason for the exemplary human being not being baptised, the absence of that ritual excludes him from being recognised as a Christian by pretty much every Christian organisation I know.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 29th July 2022, 02:57 PM   #228
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,677
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
In Anabaptist tradition (including various sectarian offspring) adult baptism is a meaningful expression of one's most deeply held beliefs.

In my own church, infant baptism is a meaningful expression of the acceptance of the child into the family of the church. "Though little children do not understand these things, yet is the promise also to them. They are the heirs of the covenant of grace." It is expected that, when the child reaches an age when he or she feels able to make the commitment personally, a second commitment known as the "profession of faith" will be made. Or maybe not, as the case may be. It's up to you at that point.

Some people resent not being aware of their baptism, and subsequently slope off to another denomination such as the Baptists to have it done all over again. That's their choice. Most people remember their parents' description of the day they were welcomed into the church community and find meaning in photographs and mementoes such as a christening mug. (I apparently slept through the entire performance.)

These rituals are as meaningful as you make them. They also carry privileges, such as (in my own church) the right to take communion, even if the profession of faith has not yet been made.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 29th July 2022, 03:10 PM   #229
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Some people resent not being aware of their baptism, and subsequently slope off to another denomination such as the Baptists to have it done all over again.
Personally I've been baptized thrice, once as an infant and then again in two slightly different branches of Baptist tradition. These days, I'm not someone who "identifies as" belonging to any of these faiths, for reasons best discussed in another subforum.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
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 29th July 2022, 03:10 PM   #230
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 28,230
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
They can be deeply devoted, in love and living together, but they won't be legally husband and wife. (Or wife and wife, or husband and husband, depending.) They will not be a married couple.

In the same way someone may be an exemplary human being, living his life by the principles of Christ's teaching, but if he isn't baptised, one is at least entitled to wonder why not.

I'm sure your deeply devoted, in love and living together couple will have their reasons for not being a married couple, but nevertheless they are not a married couple. Similarly, whatever the reason for the exemplary human being not being baptised, the absence of that ritual excludes him from being recognised as a Christian by pretty much every Christian organisation I know.
Then I'd say there's something profoundly wrong with those organisations. Recognition of God, Christ and Christian teaching doesn't become established by having water splashed over your head while someone utters ritual words, it stems from belief.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 29th July 2022, 03:27 PM   #231
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,677
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Then I'd say there's something profoundly wrong with those organisations. Recognition of God, Christ and Christian teaching doesn't become established by having water splashed over your head while someone utters ritual words, it stems from belief.

The point is that when someone comes to a belief that is significant, they then get baptised, if they weren't already. If they choose not to do that, it's an indication that whatever they believe, it doesn't line up with Christianity in the "accepting Jesus Christ as my Saviour and Lord" sense. It's the outward sign of the inward belief.

Maybe a bit like the man who insists that he loves his wife dearly, but never touches her and snaps her face off if she speaks to him? If he really loves her, why is he not behaving as if he did? Similarly, if someone is "really" a Christian, why are they not partaking of the ritual that is the outward sign of their belief?
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 29th July 2022 at 03:50 PM.
Rolfe 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 29th July 2022, 03:35 PM   #232
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,791
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
It's going to turn into the same language it has always been. We already have to do that. We, as a species that communicates and has less than average intelligence members, have always had to choose our terminology so as not to risk confusing people.

Conservatives whine often enough that they're ignored by the "elite", yet now you want to complain that we shouldn't have to speak in ways that they understand?
It's just another way to complain, I think, and to assert one's superiority. Plenty of people on this board and elsewhere blame others for misunderstanding them. Kind of like a downmarket Ezra Pound. It's not my fault you don't read Greek.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto 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 29th July 2022, 04:05 PM   #233
p0lka
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: near trees, houses and a lake.
Posts: 2,925
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Labels are a useful tool, with practical applications. Like all tools, they can be misused, or over-used. But it's a poor workman who dismisses tools.
No one should ever dismiss useful tools. I'm dismissing labels.
p0lka 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 29th July 2022, 04:20 PM   #234
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
No one should ever dismiss useful tools. I'm dismissing labels.
Labels are useful tools.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
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 29th July 2022, 04:28 PM   #235
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 28,230
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Similarly, if someone is "really" a Christian, why are they not partaking of the ritual that is the outward sign of their belief?
Key word highlighted. The ritual is a meaningless outward sign. I recall that Jesus said something about the nature of worship and ritual, like how it's fine to stay at home and do it privately without making a big public show of it. I might need to check that in the morning.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 29th July 2022, 04:35 PM   #236
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,677
You might like to check his actual actions in that particular respect also.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 29th July 2022, 04:43 PM   #237
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 50,557
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
So we've gone from having to compete against to not being able to force trans women to use the men's locker room?



I'm just going to go out on a limb and point out that "women's liberation front" saying an anonymous prisoner claimed something happened while authorities denied it might not be the most reliable source.



Your sporting organizations who have made those changes did so due to bigoted public outcry rather than your "so much research", though, because that research is nowhere near as conclusive as you wish it were.

And no, Lia Thomas lost against women, as well. Which, for some unknown reason, doesn't sink in that maybe having once had more testosterone years ago but no more now isn't the advantage bigots want to make it out to be.



Is it something, though? Or is any callous disregard you see simply me not hating the people you want me to hate?
Everything in this post is utterly incorrect. Not often do you see that.
__________________
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 29th July 2022, 05:49 PM   #238
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 206
Columnist Cathy Young tweeted several years ago this take on the (murky) concept:

Quote:
#BathroomWars 2020: Otherkin who identify as dogs challenge public urination bans b/c they should be able to piss on fire hydrants
Rather large number of people don't seem to have a clue about the difference between "being X" and "identifying-as X".

I blame the ubiquity of video games ... ;-)

Last edited by Steersman; 29th July 2022 at 05:51 PM.
Steersman 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 29th July 2022, 06:58 PM   #239
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,413
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Oh, no, there's no concern at all! Wareyin has mansplained to us poor, foolish, hysterical females and the males who support our rights that this doesn't happen, it's all made up by evil females who just don't know their place.

What about all the females on the scientific/medical bodies (all of whom are vastly more expert than the likes of you or I...) who endorsed the scientific opinion that transgender identity is valid (and that therefore transmen are men and vice versa)?

And what about all the females in legislative bodies in progressive jurisdictions who are giving transgender people significant rights and protections?

Or do those females not matter when it comes to your point of view?


Oh, and of course one satisfyingly-ironic situation is that which currently exists in Scotland, where the female First Minister is leading the effort to grant rights and protections to transgender people - in the face of opposition from males and females. How does that one fit with your weltanschauung?
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 29th July 2022, 07:14 PM   #240
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
... endorsed the scientific opinion that ... therefore transmen are men and vice versa)?
What's your definition for "man"? Do you subscribe to the standard definition - Google "man definition" - by which it is:

Quote:
man (noun): an adult male human being

Do you subscribe to the similar definition for "male", to wit:

Quote:
male (adjective): of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

Do you think that transmen can produce sperm? Producing sperm is what is called "the necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify as a male: no sperm, not a male. And not a man. Q.E.D.

See the Wikipedia article on extensional and intensional definitions for details, a salient portion of which is this:

Quote:
An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.
Steersman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:24 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.