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.
Tags transgender incidents , transgender issues , transgender rights

Reply
Old 14th June 2022, 02:44 PM   #361
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Just a moment ago* you were taking me to task for pointing out that Lia Thomas has shown no medical history, and that the NCAA doesn't require any medical history.
No, I didn't take you to task for that. I just said we can't deny that she has dysphoria on that basis (precisely because they don't ask for such documentation).

Quote:
But at least we're moving away from the idea that fiat self-ID should carry any weight at all, for any practical matter.
Have we ever been there?
mumblethrax 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 14th June 2022, 02:52 PM   #362
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Just about any category you could name is "meaningful", I suppose you mean something like a natural category?
I'm saying "what people find meaningful". You seem to be saying effectively that we can make any category meaningful. If 14 year old boys and adult women could sprint to a similar standard, then people would just learn to accept that as a meaningful category. I don't think this works. I don't think you can make people as interested in who the fastest woman in the world is as vs who the fastest person is.

I know I bang on about the French Revolution, but this is the same delusion that you can just come up with some ideal model of how the world should work and then remould people to fit the model. People are significantly less interested in women's sports than men's sports and I don't think deconstructing the category "women" and adding trans-women to it is going to help any.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
I'll just say again that there wasn't much interest in this a century ago, until women started agitating for their own interests, and that prior to that, "natural" categories were used to exclude people.
All categories exclude people. It's the nature of categories. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with excluding people unless you are trying to build some kind of delusional communist utopia where all are equal and we have distributive justice.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
I'm unconcerned with "cosmic fairness", just dealing with the ordinary kind. And it is about distributive justice. Women's sports were chronically underfunded in the US prior to Title IX.
That is what cosmic justice is. You are a progressive. Your form of justice is cosmic justice. You seek to socially engineer equal outcomes.
shuttlt 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 14th June 2022, 02:59 PM   #363
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 mumblethrax View Post
Well, this is completely disingenuous, as you've taken a quote out of context and are now imagining that it means I'm unconcerned with rape.
Interesting tactic... taking a quote out of context to argue that the response was out of context?

Let's review:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This isn't about you. I don't care about you. The activists matter because many of our institutions DO capitulate to them, and so what they say has consequences. You standing up to them counts for naught when so many others don't.
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
This problem is inflated out of all proportion.
Note: This IS the context. This IS your one-line response to Zig pointing out that the problem is that activists are having a very real impact on policies and real life. And your one-line response is that it's blown out of proportion.

And so, my response to you:
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Says a male who is not at all affected by this.

On the other hand... the females forced to share prison cells with males with fully functional penises seem to think it's a pretty real problem. So do the female athletes losing positions to males with male anatomy and male physical advantages. Not to mention the female patient on a female-only ward who was raped by a male patient, then gaslit for a YEAR by doctors who insisted that there were no "men" on the ward even though it was caught on tape. Or the entire female middle school swim team in Oregon who now take turns using the staff changing room because there's a physically intact male who uses the female showers at the same time as them. Or the female victim who was raped AT A RAPE SHELTER by a male who was allowed in because of their 'gender identity'.

Somehow, when it really only affects females, it's always 'blown out of proportion' in the eyes of many males.
You completely ignore the elements that aren't about rape, and you exclude all of the context of my post. Which, if you had bothered to pay attention, is ABOUT THE POLICIES that are having REAL EFFECTS on females.

Effects that YOU - who are a male - don't see because they don't impact you.

So when you - as a male - blithely insist that the policy impact is just being blown out of proportion, it indicates that you do not care about the impact. Just because it doesn't happen to YOU doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and it definitely doesn't mean that we silly females are just being hysterical and making a big deal out of nothing.
__________________
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 14th June 2022, 03:06 PM   #364
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 mumblethrax View Post
No. We get back to the claim that it’s reasonable to ban those who have undergone male puberty. Which is exactly where we started.
I'm not following you. Males go though male puberty. Females go through female puberty. It's impossible for a male to go through female puberty. You get that right? You do understand how puberty works, right?

The only way to prevent a male going through a male puberty... is to prevent them experiencing puberty altogether. At the extreme end, that means puberty blockers from around age 11 to age 20 give or take. That, is of course, extremely dangerous and causes some serious health problems.

At the most 'generous' end of preventing a male from going through male puberty is to put them on testosterone blockers at the onset of puberty and feed them exogenous estrogen. This has the benefit of allowing appropriate bone density accretion and reduces some of the cognitive and long-term risks of interrupting the puberty process. On the other hand... it ALSO prevents the male from attaining sexual maturity. And it generally leaves them unable to experience sexual arousal or satisfaction, and frequently leaves them sterile.

So when you say it's reasonable to ban those who've gone through a male puberty... but you do NOT mean banning males... then which of those approaches of permanent damage and medicalization do you favor in order to allow some males to compete against females?
__________________
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 14th June 2022, 03:11 PM   #365
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I'm saying "what people find meaningful". You seem to be saying effectively that we can make any category meaningful. If 14 year old boys and adult women could sprint to a similar standard, then people would just learn to accept that as a meaningful category. I don't think this works. I don't think you can make people as interested in who the fastest woman in the world is as vs who the fastest person is.
I don't think we can make any category meaningful in that sense. I'm saying that the categories can fuzz off a bit at the edges. And that they can change over time.

Quote:
All categories exclude people. It's the nature of categories. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with excluding people unless you are trying to build some kind of delusional communist utopia where all are equal and we have distributive justice.
Christ. I'm pointing out that the negro leagues excluded people for no good reason, and that this was a problem. I don't know what this nonsense about communism is even supposed to mean. Distributive justice gets a great deal of attention from Rawls, and he was very far from a communist. Please, learn something about this topic.

Quote:
That is what cosmic justice is. You are a progressive. Your form of justice is cosmic justice. You seek to socially engineer equal outcomes.
I'm not a progressive, I don't try to "socially engineer equal outcomes", and none of that has anything to do with "cosmic justice" in the first place. Get down from your backwards-ass soapbox.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 14th June 2022 at 03:31 PM.
mumblethrax 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 14th June 2022, 03:11 PM   #366
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,951
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
The gender critical movement grew out of feminist discourse surrounding transgendered people, and tends to be fairly centrist or center-left on other issues.
I would say it ranges across the political spectrum, but in the UK most who describe themselves this way range from centre to far left, yes. However, the term is used more broadly than its origins – not everyone who describes themselves this way would say themselves as allied to a specific branch of feminism.
Quote:
The anti-gender movement is older, grew out of Catholic opposition to abortion, gay marriage (and homosexuality more generally) and transgenderism, and is more conservative.
I’m aware that a Pope apparently criticised ‘gender ideology’, and I have no idea what exactly is meant by this (I know what conservative traditionalists generally believe, I just don't know why they use the term 'gender ideology' to describe it). However, the term ‘gender ideology’ is now also used by gender critical people who are not conservative or traditionalists. Moreover, the term ‘anti-gender’ is too broad because many who would describe themselves as gender critical are also adopting such terms due to constant misrepresentation of what ‘gender critical’ means.
Quote:

I can't say that I know of anyone who fits that description. I've never met a living soul who thinks laws that protect people from sex-discrimination should be abolished and replaced with laws that protect people from discrimination on the basis of gender identity. If such people exist, I expect they are a tiny minority, even among the most obnoxious activists. In any case, people in both these movements take no care whatsoever to ensure that their interlocutors actually hold this position before voicing this criticism, so it's obviously not about attacking the ideology.
That is too narrow a definition of what I said, but as it happens, I believe Stonewall in the UK did attempt to do this, although they later denied it. It is also commonplace in the UK to see people not include sex in a list of protected characteristics, but instead include gender or gender identity (which are not protected characteristics), and no, one cannot assume now that this is intended as a synonym for sex.
But I was referring more generally to the movement to treat sex as completely irrelevant and replaced entirely by self-declared identity (and the terms ‘male’ and ‘female’ are now being cast as identities). And if this happens in statistical data collection, sex discrimination will be impossible to detect.
Quote:
Can you give an account of the epistomology that underpins gender identity ideology? Or tell me what gender identity ideology is, for that matter? Or how it differs from gender ideology?
Personally, I tend to use the term gender identity ideology precisely because I understood there is another meaning to ‘gender ideology’ after hearing an activist pretending that gender-critical people are conservative traditionalists because they heard somebody on the right using the term.

What it is: imagine two people (say males) who do not have clinical dysphoria but are both gender non-conforming, that is, they do not identify with or relate to the stereotypes and expectations typically associated with their sex, and do not believe people should be pressured to conform to sex stereotypes that don’t suit them. These hypothetical people are clones of each other, except for the following statements:

Male person 1 says ‘I reject the assumption that men must have masculine traits / expression and should prefer typically male social roles / occupations’.

Male person 2 says ‘I reject the gender assigned to me on the basis of my sex therefore I am a woman (or some other gender).

The difference between the two is that the second believes in gender identity ideology and the first doesn’t. As to the epistemology, I will have to go into that in another post.

Quote:
Postmodernism is a broad umbrella of critiques of the modernist project with very little in common, so it's more or less impossible to say that it's incompatible with anything. But even those who regard science as a grand narrative beholden to naive realism are capable of doing science. They just need to provisionally accept the grand narrative.
No, there is more to it than this, but I won’t elaborate here. I will make a separate post when I have time.
Quote:
In any case, this is a genetic fallacy, and gender, as a concept distinct from grammatical gender, did not originate in postmodernism but in behavioral psychology/sexology (although certainly it has been contributed to by post-modernists over the years).
I did not just say it originated in postmodernism, I said it has its roots in it (roots support something right now). You are the one using genetic fallacy in going on about the origins of gender critical ideas and terms used by gender critical people, which have little or nothing to do with the way there are used now.
And the concept of gender as used now in gender identity activism has nothing to do with behavioural psychology – it comes from and is underpinned (right now) by queer theory, which originated in humanities and has infiltrated parts of psychology.

Quote:
"Trans-identified male" is not a more accurate term than "transwoman", and exists only to antagonize those who would like to be thought of as women.
If somebody says ‘trans-identified males should not be allowed to play in female sports’, they are emphasizing that the reason for this is that they are male and that identity is irrelevant. Because believe it or not, if you say ‘trans women should not compete in female sports’ somebody will come along and say ‘you are bigoted against women who happen to be trans’.
Quote:
"Gender ideology" , on the other hand, is largely a floating signifier used to attack people. You can tell by the way you deploy it against people who don't hold the ideology you (haven't) described.
Actually, I’ve described it plenty of times. The problem is that a large number of people seem to have swallowed it wholesale under the belief that it represents some type of scientific advance or progress. When pushed, however, they can never explain what this scientific advance actually is, or how re-defining the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in terms of identification with gender stereotypes is progressive rather than regressive.

Quote:
I'm unclear on what you think the relevance of this is. If I think "gender identity theory" (whatever it turns out to be...is it different from "gender identity ideology"?) holds, I will think they are wrong to reject it, and if I don't, I will think they are right to do so.
You can think they are wrong to reject it, but if you can give any coherent, logical, evidence-based reason why, you will be the first to do so. It might help to read some critiques first.
__________________
"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." - Salman Rushdie.
Elaedith 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 14th June 2022, 03:15 PM   #367
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
So when you say it's reasonable to ban those who've gone through a male puberty... but you do NOT mean banning males... then which of those approaches of permanent damage and medicalization do you favor in order to allow some males to compete against females?
Do I have to explain the difference between acknowledging the existence of such people and endorsing what they've undergone?
mumblethrax 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 14th June 2022, 03:18 PM   #368
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 mumblethrax View Post
Do I have to explain the difference between acknowledging the existence of such people and endorsing what they've undergone?
It would probably help. Your interaction style comes across as quite oppositional. Pretty much everyone who has interacted with you in this thread is reading your posts to say something that you insist they don't say. If it were merely one or two people, then okay, that's maybe a couple of people being extra prickly. But it's been at least half a dozen people who are under the impression that you are taking a particular position... and then playing semantic games to avoid committing to that position firmly.

It's very difficult to have a discussion with someone when they hop, skip, and jump around whatever their position actually is. So I respectfully invite you to be less wishy-washy and be more clear about your personal views and thoughts on the matter.
__________________
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 14th June 2022, 04:42 PM   #369
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,938
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I suppose that might be a legit concern, but I wouldn't concede that the sports associations need to concern themselves with shaping broader cultural trends.
It's not just about broader social trends. In this instance, it's harm to specific athletes competing in their organization that they incentivized. I don't think they can just ignore their responsibility here. After all, why do sports organizations ban steroids? It's not about fairness, since letting everyone use would be fair. It's about preventing harm to their competitors. This isn't any different in my mind.

But perhaps more to the point, there's no test for this, so it's not usable as a criterion.
__________________
"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 14th June 2022, 05:01 PM   #370
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,413
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
It would probably help. Your interaction style comes across as quite oppositional.

Far be it for me to speak for mumblethrax..... but I suspect that this may have something to do with the fact that he/she has an opposing view to that held by the majority of people in this thread, most of whom appear to hold (often somewhat disguised) anti-transgender-animus and trans-exclusionary views. And those people (including you) don't appear to like what he/she is saying, so you take exaggerated exception to it. Just my observation, y'know.


Quote:
Pretty much everyone who has interacted with you in this thread is reading your posts to say something that you insist they don't say.

See above.



Quote:
If it were merely one or two people, then okay, that's maybe a couple of people being extra prickly. But it's been at least half a dozen people who are under the impression that you are taking a particular position... and then playing semantic games to avoid committing to that position firmly.

See above.



Quote:
It's very difficult to have a discussion with someone when they hop, skip, and jump around whatever their position actually is. So I respectfully invite you to be less wishy-washy and be more clear about your personal views and thoughts on the matter.

Mumblethrax's position has, so far as I have read it and drawn inferences from it, been consistent throughout. Perhaps you'd like to quote examples of where/how (s)he has "hopped, skipped and jumped" around with his/her position, if you're making that claim. In any event, I'm sure mumblethrax will appreciate - and benefit from - your quasi-judicial "invitation" for him/her to be "less wishy-washy and...more clear". But obviously I will reserve judgement, and rely instead upon whether or not mumblethrax himself/herself chooses to reply to your charming post.
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 14th June 2022, 05:22 PM   #371
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,413
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This isn't about you. I don't care about you. The activists matter because many of our institutions DO capitulate to them, and so what they say has consequences. You standing up to them counts for naught when so many others don't.

Our institutions "capitulate to activists", huh? Well, first off, I guess we'd better send all the more extremist* black civil rights activists and gay rights activists off to the dustbin of history, right? Goddamn governments and institutions "capitulating" in the way they did to those causes.

Secondly, you appear to take an incredibly jaded - and somewhat damning - view of governments and social institutions in modern liberal democracies. Because you're appearing to claim that they're being either bamboozled, pressurised or threatened to somehow give in to the demands of activists (AKA the mythical "policy capture" nonsense. Well... that ain't how it works, and it ain't how it's ever worked in the past either.

I don't know if you're aware of it, for example, but it actually took governments and other related institutions much longer than it really should have done, before they "capitulated" in such areas as female suffrage, black civil rights and gay rights - rights a) which we now, thankfully take for granted, and b) where most (if not all) reasonable people simply can't understand how there was ever a situation where those rights/protections didn't exist.

And lastly on this matter: you seem also to be unaware that governments and other related institutions do an enormous amount of work, soundings, evidence-gathering and consultation.... prior to proposing, passing into law, or instigating & enforcing law/regulations when it comes to these sorts of civil rights reforms. I guarantee you that they take great care to listen to all interested parties, and that they're constantly trying to take evidence-based decisions and second-guessing any unintended consequences. Of course, it's often the case that the initial legislation etc benefits from being amended and adjusted over time - it's something of an iterative process. But no governments/courts/scientific experts are being unduly influenced by extremist activists (on either side).


Quote:
This is a straw man. Nobody here is advocating toxic behavior. No one here has a problem accommodating trans people in most situations. You are working yourself up into a froth here.

LOL! You really believe that? Maybe go back and read, say, the previous several pages of this thread again.


* And by "more extremist", I don't mean the ones who advocated or initiated violent rebellion-tinged activism. Because you're aware, obviously, that even the most extreme trans rights activists are not in that league of "extreme" either......
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 14th June 2022, 05:29 PM   #372
p0lka
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: near trees, houses and a lake.
Posts: 2,925
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
It would probably help. Your interaction style comes across as quite oppositional. Pretty much everyone who has interacted with you in this thread is reading your posts to say something that you insist they don't say. If it were merely one or two people, then okay, that's maybe a couple of people being extra prickly. But it's been at least half a dozen people who are under the impression that you are taking a particular position... and then playing semantic games to avoid committing to that position firmly.

It's very difficult to have a discussion with someone when they hop, skip, and jump around whatever their position actually is. So I respectfully invite you to be less wishy-washy and be more clear about your personal views and thoughts on the matter.
Surely you jest?

Your posts tend to be special pleading for females and non sequiturs.

Pointing out hop skipping and jumping in others posts is yeah, brill.

Last edited by p0lka; 14th June 2022 at 05:32 PM.
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 14th June 2022, 05:41 PM   #373
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,194
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Conservatives say, "let's keep the ball where it is"... progressives say "let's kick the ball a mile down the road"... centrists say "the reasonable position is in the middle"... so the ball is kicked half mile down the road.
Sometimes the ball does need to move a bit down the road. It used to be perfectly legal for American employers to fire a trans women just for coming out as such, until the courts decided that the Equal Protection Clause applies in such cases.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 14th June 2022 at 05:43 PM.
d4m10n 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 14th June 2022, 05:49 PM   #374
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,194
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
In this instance, it's harm to specific athletes competing in their organization that they incentivized.
I mean, it's possible that some people would transition a bit earlier because they are hoping to remain eligible for cross-sex sports. It doesn't seem likely to catch on as a contagious idea, for reasons stated by Rolfe. Right now, the idea of puberty blockers followed by CSH is already a fairly contagious idea, and that was before any leagues established policies similar to the ones I linked from World Rugby.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 14th June 2022 at 05:58 PM.
d4m10n 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 14th June 2022, 06:00 PM   #375
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Note: This IS the context. This IS your one-line response to Zig pointing out that the problem is that activists are having a very real impact on policies and real life. And your one-line response is that it's blown out of proportion.
I was specifically saying that the problem of people and institutions capitulating to trans activists is blown out of proportion. I can say that while still acknowledging that it happens, and it's bad when it does. That exchange followed Zig's claim that trans activists would not accept my putative definition of women. I don't particularly think that's true, at least not everywhere--if Merriam Webster were to add the sense of 'woman' that describes gender, I think those activists would be delighted. If they said "Not good enough!" I think Merriam Webster would tell them to go kick rocks.

For the sake of clarity, I was not saying that it's not a problem if girls don't feel comfortable using their own changing room, or that rape is unimportant.

You complain about awful neologisms like "uterus-haver", and it is awful, but here's a challenge: find me as many instances as you can of people actually, seriously using it. Not people complaining about it, or joking about it, or even telling other people to use it: just casually using it. I suspect it barely happens. In college, at the dawn of the age of people complaining about "political correctness", I had a sexist English instructor who griped constantly about how feminists wanted us to say "ovular" instead of "seminar". I looked it up one day, and found one usage that wasn't clearly a joke or a complaint. The women's clinic where I volunteer is very trans-friendly, a pioneer in "trans health"...and they still say women and girl all over the place in their literature. And in the name of the place. "Uterus-haver" nowhere. If they need or want a gender neutral word, they just say "patient".

Quote:
You completely ignore the elements that aren't about rape, and you exclude all of the context of my post. Which, if you had bothered to pay attention, is ABOUT THE POLICIES that are having REAL EFFECTS on females.
I focused on rape in prison because it's a good example of where we fail to see the forest for the trees. Rape by male guards is orders of magnitudes more common than rape by trans inmates, tens of thousands of assaults per year, but has it ever even been mentioned on this forum? Trans women aren't the primary culprits, so why this intense focus on them? I also think the problem of trans women in prison is relatively easy to solve, except in prisons that are dumpster fires of human misery, which too many of them are.

Quote:
Effects that YOU - who are a male - don't see because they don't impact you.
I do see them. They do impact me. I don't want anybody getting raped. I don't want girls feeling uncomfortable to change in their own changing room.

Quote:
It's very difficult to have a discussion with someone when they hop, skip, and jump around whatever their position actually is. So I respectfully invite you to be less wishy-washy and be more clear about your personal views and thoughts on the matter.
Am I required to have a position from the outset? I'm trying to puzzle my way through this issue. From my perspective, this thread is often incredibly hostile, which makes bad faith argument inevitable, and there's a powerful counter-orthodoxy at work. If I say "Hey, I think there might be such a thing as gender?" I'll be told I want women back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 14th June 2022 at 06:01 PM.
mumblethrax 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 14th June 2022, 06:52 PM   #376
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
However, the term ‘gender ideology’ is now also used by gender critical people who are not conservative or traditionalists.
I don't doubt it. To say that "gender ideology" is a shibboleth of the anti-gender movement is not to say that it hasn't migrated out.

Quote:
But I was referring more generally to the movement to treat sex as completely irrelevant and replaced entirely by self-declared identity (and the terms ‘male’ and ‘female’ are now being cast as identities). And if this happens in statistical data collection, sex discrimination will be impossible to detect.
I mean, that does happen. I was once memorably asked not to use the phrase "female genitalia" because "I'm male, so my vagina is male." He was polite enough about it. But do I think that's crazy? I do.

It's just it has nothing to do with what I believe, so why did I get accused of adhering to gender ideology?

Quote:
Male person 1 says ‘I reject the assumption that men must have masculine traits / expression and should prefer typically male social roles / occupations’.

Male person 2 says ‘I reject the gender assigned to me on the basis of my sex therefore I am a woman (or some other gender).

The difference between the two is that the second believes in gender identity ideology and the first doesn’t.
Doesn't this just beg the question by assuming that there's nothing to the idea of gender identity? I could just as easily claim that the difference lies in the fact that the first believes in the SSSM, while the second doesn't.

Let's imagine there's a third twin...er, triplet. He's born with cloacal exstrophy, and has an inadequate penis as a result. Doctors, after repairing his gut, advise the parents he'll be better off as a female, as he won't have a satisfactory sex life as a man. He's given a "sex change", and the parents are told it's vital to his development that they never reveal what has happened. As he grows up, his favorite activities are hunting, fishing and wrestling. At the age of 7, he spontaneously declares that he is a boy, not a girl, even as his parents resist that declaration.

Does he believe in "gender ideology?" Or is he just a boy, who somehow knows that he's a boy?

Quote:
As to the epistemology, I will have to go into that in another post.

No, there is more to it than this, but I won’t elaborate here. I will make a separate post when I have time.
Ok, fair enough.

Quote:
I did not just say it originated in postmodernism, I said it has its roots in it (roots support something right now).
This equivocates on a well understand turn of phrase, but ok. You just meant it has a root system that crosses into post-modernism?

Quote:
And the concept of gender as used now in gender identity activism has nothing to do with behavioural psychology – it comes from and is underpinned (right now) by queer theory, which originated in humanities and has infiltrated parts of psychology.
I think there's a fair amount of influence of the original sense just about everywhere it's used.

Quote:
If somebody says ‘trans-identified males should not be allowed to play in female sports’, they are emphasizing that the reason for this is that they are male and that identity is irrelevant. Because believe it or not, if you say ‘trans women should not compete in female sports’ somebody will come along and say ‘you are bigoted against women who happen to be trans’.
And if you say "trans-identifying male" you'll be accused of being a bigot, too. So that's not really going to work as a reason to say it.

But this usage leads directly to this ludicrous situation:

Quote:
trans-identified male (plural trans-identified males)

1. (derogatory, offensive) A trans woman.
2. A trans man.
Quote:
When pushed, however, they can never explain what this scientific advance actually is, or how re-defining the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in terms of identification with gender stereotypes is progressive rather than regressive.
I'd say it's similar to advances in knowing how the differences between the sexes in prosociality arise. It's just useful to know what drives us, and how. What we can change about ourselves and what we can't. It would be useful to know that the idea that gender is nothing more than an oppressive social construct is false. I don't particularly care whether or not it's progressive--if it's true, it informs our morality, and we're more likely to arrive at good outcomes.
mumblethrax 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 14th June 2022, 07:03 PM   #377
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,194
Quote:
trans-identified male (plural trans-identified males)

1. (derogatory, offensive) A trans woman.
2. A trans man.
I'm not following this. Have trans men been known to call themselves trans-identified males?
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n 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 14th June 2022, 07:08 PM   #378
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I'm not following this. Have trans men been known to call themselves trans-identified males?
Yes. That usage predates the usage by the gender critical crowd. Not only is it confusing, it looks suspiciously like an intentional "oh no you're not" inversion.
mumblethrax 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 14th June 2022, 07:11 PM   #379
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,938
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Our institutions "capitulate to activists", huh?
Quite often, yes.

Quote:
Well, first off, I guess we'd better send all the more extremist* black civil rights activists and gay rights activists off to the dustbin of history, right? Goddamn governments and institutions "capitulating" in the way they did to those causes.
Is your claim that because it was right to capitulate to certain activists at certain times, they should do so for all activists at all times? That wouldn't make any sense. If not, then you still need to argue on the basis of the actual merits for these activists, without trying to borrow the virtue of past activists.

But you also seem to object to me even accurately describing what's happening, regardless of whether or not you think it's a good thing. It's quite odd.

Quote:
Secondly, you appear to take an incredibly jaded - and somewhat damning - view of governments and social institutions in modern liberal democracies.
I take an incredibly jaded view of our current elite. They are the most incompetent and out of touch group of elite we as a nation have ever had.

Quote:
And lastly on this matter: you seem also to be unaware that governments and other related institutions do an enormous amount of work, soundings, evidence-gathering and consultation.... prior to proposing, passing into law, or instigating & enforcing law/regulations when it comes to these sorts of civil rights reforms. I guarantee you that they take great care to listen to all interested parties, and that they're constantly trying to take evidence-based decisions and second-guessing any unintended consequences.
You guarantee that?

You aren't in a position to guarantee that. Hell, I doubt you're even in a position to know that.

And this is incredibly naive. Laws are only passed on the basis of scientific evidence when there are no strong special interests lobbying on the topic. Otherwise, laws get passed mostly on the basis of what politicians think will get them votes. Which may or may not have some connection to scientific evidence, but it's never the same thing as scientific evidence.

Quote:
Of course, it's often the case that the initial legislation etc benefits from being amended and adjusted over time - it's something of an iterative process. But no governments/courts/scientific experts are being unduly influenced by extremist activists (on either side).
Were the trans bathroom bans not unduly influenced by anti-trans activists? Was that really decided on the basis of scientific expertise? You don't even believe your own rhetoric.
__________________
"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 14th June 2022, 09:07 PM   #380
TomB
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,332
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
And lastly on this matter: you seem also to be unaware that governments and other related institutions do an enormous amount of work, soundings, evidence-gathering and consultation.... prior to proposing, passing into law, or instigating & enforcing law/regulations when it comes to these sorts of civil rights reforms. I guarantee you that they take great care to listen to all interested parties, and that they're constantly trying to take evidence-based decisions and second-guessing any unintended consequences. Of course, it's often the case that the initial legislation etc benefits from being amended and adjusted over time - it's something of an iterative process. But no governments/courts/scientific experts are being unduly influenced by extremist activists (on either side).
You keep saying this over and over, but I'm not convinced you have thought this through.

Because if you had, you'd realize that the same argument would apply to laws proposed or passed that require people to use the bathroom of their birth sex and laws that prohibit trans girls from participating on female sports teams.
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 14th June 2022, 09:34 PM   #381
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 50,557
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
You keep saying this over and over, but I'm not convinced you have thought this through.

Because if you had, you'd realize that the same argument would apply to laws proposed or passed that require people to use the bathroom of their birth sex and laws that prohibit trans girls from participating on female sports teams.
Exactly. Governments only become progressive and honourable when they agree with you.
__________________
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 14th June 2022, 09:35 PM   #382
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,194
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
That usage predates the usage by the gender critical crowd.
Wow, that is confusing. Ran a quick search over at Google Books and it looks like the meaning of the phrase inverted after 2012 or so.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2022, 12:04 AM   #383
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Oh, let's say stage 2. As I understand it, boys and girls don't attain physical fitness attributes in the same order, so it might be a bit different in any given sport. I assume that Rolfe is right and this would be more of an "in principle" olive branch.
This requires putting 11 and 12 year olds on puberty blockers/cross sex hormones with lifelong consequences. Children at this age are clearly not Gillick competent to make these decisions.
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 15th June 2022, 12:14 AM   #384
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
And lastly on this matter: you seem also to be unaware that governments and other related institutions do an enormous amount of work, soundings, evidence-gathering and consultation.... prior to proposing, passing into law, or instigating & enforcing law/regulations when it comes to these sorts of civil rights reforms. I guarantee you that they take great care to listen to all interested parties, and that they're constantly trying to take evidence-based decisions and second-guessing any unintended consequences.
Sure...

Quote:
Recent reports have shown that the SNP has failed to engage with feminist and religious groups in their gender reform proposals and have instead opted to hear only from pro-trans lobby groups.

A Freedom of Information report has found that five of the groups who met with Shona Robison, the minister in charge of the reforms, receive government funding and have been aggressively pushing for changes since the election pledge.

Meetings have been held with the Equality Network, Scottish Trans, Stonewall Scotland, LGBT Youth Scotland and LGBT Health and Wellbeing since May. However, no equivalent meetings have been held with opposition groups like the Scottish Catholic Church or feminist group, For Women Scotland.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co....roups-25850103
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 15th June 2022, 12:27 AM   #385
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
You complain about awful neologisms like "uterus-haver", and it is awful, but here's a challenge: find me as many instances as you can of people actually, seriously using it. Not people complaining about it, or joking about it, or even telling other people to use it: just casually using it. I suspect it barely happens.
An example of the debate on medical terminology

Quote:
Should clinicians be using the word ‘woman’ in medical language? Are phrases like ‘human milk’, ‘parental’ and ‘hand-held notes’ preferable to ‘breastmilk’, ‘maternal’ and ‘maternity notes’1?
https://pmj.bmj.com/content/97/1150/483

This thread has run through many iterations but a common theme is that new posters are often not aware of the current state of play; "that would never happen" is usually met with examples.
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 15th June 2022, 01:08 AM   #386
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
You complain about awful neologisms like "uterus-haver", and it is awful, but here's a challenge: find me as many instances as you can of people actually, seriously using it. Not people complaining about it, or joking about it, or even telling other people to use it: just casually using it. I suspect it barely happens. In college, at the dawn of the age of people complaining about "political correctness", I had a sexist English instructor who griped constantly about how feminists wanted us to say "ovular" instead of "seminar". I looked it up one day, and found one usage that wasn't clearly a joke or a complaint. The women's clinic where I volunteer is very trans-friendly, a pioneer in "trans health"...and they still say women and girl all over the place in their literature. And in the name of the place. "Uterus-haver" nowhere. If they need or want a gender neutral word, they just say "patient".
Here is the top hit on Google for "birthing persons nhs".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-56007728
It's an NHS trust changing their language to be trans-inclusive in their maternity services. They were moving to "chest feeding" and "birthing parent".

It's not hard to find examples.
shuttlt is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2022, 01:54 AM   #387
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 92,445
Roy Wood Jr from the Daily Show with Trevor Noah did an extended piece with 2 transgendered young people. It was excellent if you have 50 minutes to watch it. They mention the issues with sports but say that really is only a small issue overall. The GOP using trans people in their campaign fear mongering is a serious threat in states like TX and FL.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2022, 07:43 AM   #388
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
This requires putting 11 and 12 year olds on puberty blockers/cross sex hormones with lifelong consequences. Children at this age are clearly not Gillick competent to make these decisions.
Like I said, I'm not advocating it.

Quote:
An example of the debate on medical terminology
But that's not what I asked for.

Originally Posted by shuttIt
Here is the top hit on Google for "birthing persons nhs".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-56007728
It's an NHS trust changing their language to be trans-inclusive in their maternity services. They were moving to "chest feeding" and "birthing parent".

It's not hard to find examples.
Also not what I asked for.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2022, 08:25 AM   #389
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 9,365
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Like I said, I'm not advocating it.


But that's not what I asked for.


Also not what I asked for.
What exactly did you ask for?
Matthew Best is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2022, 08:28 AM   #390
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
What exactly did you ask for?
"You complain about awful neologisms like "uterus-haver", and it is awful, but here's a challenge: find me as many instances as you can of people actually, seriously using it. Not people complaining about it, or joking about it, or even telling other people to use it: just casually using it. I suspect it barely happens."
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2022, 08:32 AM   #391
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Also not what I asked for.
You want some fly on the wall footage?

You had said
Quote:
The women's clinic where I volunteer is very trans-friendly, a pioneer in "trans health"...and they still say women and girl all over the place in their literature. And in the name of the place. "Uterus-haver" nowhere. If they need or want a gender neutral word, they just say "patient".
That is why I thought an account of an NHS trust saying they were going to use "birthing person" would be relevant.

You can see that BSUH have updated their website:
https://www.bsuh.nhs.uk/maternity/your-pregnancy/

It is now all "pregnant and breast/chest feeding women and people". They have produced guidelines saying that this is how they are going to communicate, and their website shows them communicating in this way.
shuttlt is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2022, 08:40 AM   #392
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
It is now all "pregnant and breast/chest feeding women and people". They have produced guidelines saying that this is how they are going to communicate, and their website shows them communicating in this way.
"Pregnant women and people" sound not at all awful to me, shows that "female erasure" is not actually happening, doesn't have the atomization problem, and seems clinically appropriate where people who don't consider themselves women are part of the audience.

Anyway, I was specifically asking for examples of "uterus-havers".
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2022, 08:50 AM   #393
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 9,365
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Anyway, I was specifically asking for examples of "uterus-havers".
I mistakenly thought you were asking for awful neologisms like "uterus-haver".

Why the particular interest in this one term?
Matthew Best is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2022, 11:36 AM   #394
TomB
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,332
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
So when you say it's reasonable to ban those who've gone through a male puberty... but you do NOT mean banning males... then which of those approaches of permanent damage and medicalization do you favor in order to allow some males to compete against females?
I see that Mumblethrax already replied to you on this point. But I think I'll respond as well.

People who have had puberty blockers exist. Given current treatment trends, there will be more of them. Arguing against the treatment does not make these people go away in the near term. Therefore, it is quite feasible to have a stance on if and how to accommodate them in a variety of situations independent of any stance or debate on the appropriateness of the care that got them there.

I don't like using this analogy, but I think it's one that might be illustrative. One can be critical of reckless behavior that leads to contracting an easily preventable disease without being against treatment for the disease.

In other words, the opinion that they should not have had a particular treatment does not lead to a conclusion as to what you allow them to do post-treatment. Particularly when we are talking about treatment that happens as kids. It smells of punishing the kids because you don't agree with the decisions of the parents.

So I would suggest separating the arguments regarding the merits of a treatment plan from decisions about how to handle people who have had that treatment.

Additionally, you phrase this as if boys are put on puberty blockers for the purpose of competing in women's divisions in the future. That seems...odd, but I agree that regardless of the merits of any other reason for puberty blockers, that one would be ridiculously out of line. But I doubt it is happening. I can't see a whole lot of parents going:

"Hey, little Johnny, I'd like you to play baseball, but you suck. So we're going to turn you into a girl. Then you can play softball. By the way, your new name is Hilda."

Do you think this actual conversation or thought process goes on? Or do you think that twelve year old boys are likely to think:

"I like swimming, but I'm slow. So I'll tell mom and dad I'm a girl so they can put me on drugs and get me on the girl's team. Then I can WIN!!!"

There may be (a few) cases where a male transitions with the express intent to pursue a sports career as a woman. I'm not aware of any, but it's conceivable. (People are strange.) But that would most likely happen with adults (18+). Most of the cases you hear of in high school are, I think, kids who transitioned and then figured out they liked or might be good at sports. (And in most of the cases I've seen, they shouldn't be on the girls' team, in my opinion.)

Ascribing sports competition as an actual motive for puberty suppression seems off base.

For those who go through puberty suppression and then discover sports, evaluate them as individuals.
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2022, 11:52 AM   #395
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,194
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
"Pregnant women and people" sound not at all awful to me, shows that "female erasure" is not actually happening...
https://nypost.com/2021/09/28/aclu-a...woman-and-she/
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2022, 11:56 AM   #396
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,677
Given the known adverse effects of puberty blockers on boys, I think it's safe to say that puberty-blocked boys beating girls and women in the female events is not going to be a practical problem.
__________________
"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 15th June 2022, 12:08 PM   #397
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Roy Wood Jr from the Daily Show with Trevor Noah did an extended piece with 2 transgendered young people. It was excellent if you have 50 minutes to watch it. They mention the issues with sports but say that really is only a small issue overall.
Of course they did. This is the standard trans-activist dodge when it comes to the difficult question of trans policy in sports.

They don't have a solution, so they just downplay or dismiss the problem. You don't have a solution, so you just downplay or dismiss the problem.

Instead of dismissing it, why don't you solve it?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2022, 01:29 PM   #398
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 p0lka View Post
Surely you jest?

Your posts tend to be special pleading for females and non sequiturs.

Pointing out hop skipping and jumping in others posts is yeah, brill.
Things I never thought I'd have to say:

Expecting females to have spaced to change or be vulnerable without the presence of males is not "special pleading". Wanting female inmates to be housed with only females is not "special pleading".
__________________
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 15th June 2022, 01:43 PM   #399
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Special pleading is a rhetorical fallacy, appealing to a spurious or begged distinction in order to avoid applying the agreed-upon reasoning to the matter in question.

However, the distinction between men and women is real. The pleading is not special.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2022, 02:36 PM   #400
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 mumblethrax View Post
I was specifically saying that the problem of people and institutions capitulating to trans activists is blown out of proportion. I can say that while still acknowledging that it happens, and it's bad when it does. That exchange followed Zig's claim that trans activists would not accept my putative definition of women. I don't particularly think that's true, at least not everywhere--if Merriam Webster were to add the sense of 'woman' that describes gender, I think those activists would be delighted. If they said "Not good enough!" I think Merriam Webster would tell them to go kick rocks.

For the sake of clarity, I was not saying that it's not a problem if girls don't feel comfortable using their own changing room, or that rape is unimportant.

You complain about awful neologisms like "uterus-haver", and it is awful, but here's a challenge: find me as many instances as you can of people actually, seriously using it. Not people complaining about it, or joking about it, or even telling other people to use it: just casually using it. I suspect it barely happens. In college, at the dawn of the age of people complaining about "political correctness", I had a sexist English instructor who griped constantly about how feminists wanted us to say "ovular" instead of "seminar". I looked it up one day, and found one usage that wasn't clearly a joke or a complaint. The women's clinic where I volunteer is very trans-friendly, a pioneer in "trans health"...and they still say women and girl all over the place in their literature. And in the name of the place. "Uterus-haver" nowhere. If they need or want a gender neutral word, they just say "patient".
Midol refers to its customers as "menstruators"
Tampax celebrating "people who bleed"
CNN refers to "people with cervixes"
Medical Journal The Lancet writes about "bodies with vaginas" but they still refer to men as men.
Harvard medical school talks about "black birthing bodies" and "gestational parents"
BBC News writing about "people with a vagina"
Period tracking app Clue has a whole paper on what language to use instead of women, including uterus-haver, people with uteruses, and people who menstruate
Discussion of whether or not the word "woman" should be used in a medical setting in a medical journal
Period product company Yoppie advertises to "bleeders"

There's more, but I assume that's enough to start with? Enough to acknowledge that this is something that female humans aren't "hysterical" about when we find such dehumanizing language insulting?

Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
I focused on rape in prison because it's a good example of where we fail to see the forest for the trees. Rape by male guards is orders of magnitudes more common than rape by trans inmates, tens of thousands of assaults per year, but has it ever even been mentioned on this forum? Trans women aren't the primary culprits, so why this intense focus on them? I also think the problem of trans women in prison is relatively easy to solve, except in prisons that are dumpster fires of human misery, which too many of them are.
Yes, rape in prison is already a problem. We've actually addressed this multiple times throughout this thread. It's a problem already for female inmates, and it's also a problem for male inmates. My point, which I think is quite valid, is that INCREASING the risk to females by placing males in the same cells as them is NOT a way to mitigate the current risk of rape. So let's NOT do that. And placing males with females as a result of their self-declaration of gender identity is a policy adopted by legislators as a result of lobbying groups.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
I do see them. They do impact me. I don't want anybody getting raped. I don't want girls feeling uncomfortable to change in their own changing room.

Am I required to have a position from the outset? I'm trying to puzzle my way through this issue. From my perspective, this thread is often incredibly hostile, which makes bad faith argument inevitable, and there's a powerful counter-orthodoxy at work. If I say "Hey, I think there might be such a thing as gender?" I'll be told I want women back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
No, you're not required to have a position from the outset. It's true that this thread can get "passionate". Some of that is simply because this is volume 9 and well, many of us have gone through all of this multiple times already, so it feels like we're having to start all over again for no good reason. This is exacerbated by the fact that a few regular posters who have definitely been through these discussions keep trying to fringe reset the whole thing and it's exhausting. I know it's a lot to read through, but it might be worthwhile for you to go skim through the prior volumes. They contain some very good information, from people on both sides of this discussion.

And to be brutally honest, some of my frustration is due to having been repeatedly told - by males - that this isn't that big of a deal, and that females are just overreacting. I can't tell you how many times in this thread the message has essentially been "males know better than you, you silly little female, so just shoosh and let us tell you what to do". Not in exactly those words, but sometimes not that far off. I'm tired of being told that the concerns of females don't matter, and that we're evil bigoted fascist nazi-adjacent transphobes if we object to having penises in our showers without our express consent. Sometimes, I'm just not in the mood to have to "be kind" to another male who seems to think it's not a big deal for me.

Females are conditioned to "be kind", and to sublimate our own needs to support the feelings of males. It sucks for males right now, but many of us are completely fed up with it, and being kind doesn't work for us.
__________________
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

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 15th June 2022 at 03:00 PM.
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
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 03:31 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.