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 8th June 2022, 03:44 PM   #121
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,890
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/us/ju...cec/index.html

The NFL's first out trans cheerleader readies for her Carolina Panthers debut

Quote:
"Our organization is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate because of age, race, religion, color, disability, sex, sexual orientation, or national origin," the Panthers said in a statement to CNN. "We wish all the TopCats, including Justine Lindsay, an incredible season."

Not sure this is an "equal opportunity" issue. At a night club I worked at we hired women as dancers. This is perfectly legal and not discriminatory.

If The Panthers wish to do something truly forward thinking they could get rid of cheerleaders altogether.
__________________
Thanks and bye.
mgidm86 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 8th June 2022, 04:04 PM   #122
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 Elaedith View Post
He is the Wokiest of the Woke with a capital W, morally grandstanding 'speech has consequences' bully, questioning the narrative is literal violence, JK Rowling is evil etc. I would probably agree with his opinions on many social issues, but he has gone way down the authoritarian Critical Social Justice cult path.

Then he said something that wasn't quite ideologically pure. I think it started when Helen Joyce said that we should try to reduce the number of people medically transitioning, and was immediately accused of advocating eugenics (which a lot of people seem to be conflating with genocide - somebody who was advocating eugenics would surely encourage medical transition because it sterilizes people).

OJ said something about not over-reacting and mentioned detransitioners, and then got a massive pile-on accusing him of being a Nazi and literally condoning eugenics/genocide etc. Then he complained about being frustrated at false claims being accepted as truth on social media, with a total lack of irony or self-reflection.

Some of us find it amusing. These people will always end up turning on each other.

ETA. I think he did actually condemn Helen Joyce, just not strongly enough. He said it was 'chilling' but denied that it was advocating genocide or something. Big mistake. Always use words like 'genocide' 'fascist' etc to be safe.

That's just my rough understanding. I haven't bothered looking up exactly what he said. Everyone will eventually fail to be ideologically pure enough no matter how safe they think they are.
It's been entertaining. I truly adore witnessing Brits interact, and both Helen Joyce and Helen Staniland are so intelligent.

Watching the inevitable piranha attack of OJ has been hilarious. The context of the discussion between the eminent Helens was around wanting better overall care, especially for children, so that becoming a life-long medical patient with such health risks (not to mention the harm for those who detransition) is reduced. Neither is actually 100% opposed to transition, but they are quite reasonably opposed to rushed transition that causes irreversible damage.

And apparently wanting appropriate care that doesn't do unnecessary and irreversible harm is "eugenics" and "genocide".
__________________
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 8th June 2022, 04:06 PM   #123
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 SuburbanTurkey View Post
We can all cite twitter weirdos aggravated about this or that topic until the cows come home. My point is that pointing to a bunch of weirdos slapfighting on twitter is not very instructive.
I'm curious who you think the weirdos are in this situation.
__________________
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 8th June 2022, 04:53 PM   #124
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Not sure this is an "equal opportunity" issue. At a night club I worked at we hired women as dancers. This is perfectly legal and not discriminatory.
When employers call themselves "equal opportunity" they just mean they pledge not to discriminate. It's not a legal status or anything. And they do or did have some male cheerleaders, so I guess might have some difficulty arguing that being a woman is a job qualification.

Quote:
If The Panthers wish to do something truly forward thinking they could get rid of cheerleaders altogether.
And then the Panthers.
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 8th June 2022, 05:01 PM   #125
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,194
I, too, wish all the TopCats, including Justine Lindsay, an incredible season.

(Except when they play against my hometown.)
__________________
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 8th June 2022, 05:13 PM   #126
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/us/ju...cec/index.html

The NFL's first out trans cheerleader readies for her Carolina Panthers debut




Not sure this is an "equal opportunity" issue. At a night club I worked at we hired women as dancers. This is perfectly legal and not discriminatory.

If The Panthers wish to do something truly forward thinking they could get rid of cheerleaders altogether.
Bet she still gets tapped for all the strength moves and power moves, though.
__________________
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 8th June 2022, 09:41 PM   #127
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 5,153
This will be interesting.

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
__________________
I don't like that man. I must get to know him better. --Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by sir drinks-a-lot; 8th June 2022 at 09:43 PM.
sir drinks-a-lot 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 9th June 2022, 07:24 AM   #128
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,677
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
He is the Wokiest of the Woke with a capital W, morally grandstanding 'speech has consequences' bully, questioning the narrative is literal violence, JK Rowling is evil etc. I would probably agree with his opinions on many social issues, but he has gone way down the authoritarian Critical Social Justice cult path.

Then he said something that wasn't quite ideologically pure. I think it started when Helen Joyce said that we should try to reduce the number of people medically transitioning, and was immediately accused of advocating eugenics (which a lot of people seem to be conflating with genocide - somebody who was advocating eugenics would surely encourage medical transition because it sterilizes people).

OJ said something about not over-reacting and mentioned detransitioners, and then got a massive pile-on accusing him of being a Nazi and literally condoning eugenics/genocide etc. Then he complained about being frustrated at false claims being accepted as truth on social media, with a total lack of irony or self-reflection.

Some of us find it amusing. These people will always end up turning on each other.

ETA. I think he did actually condemn Helen Joyce, just not strongly enough. He said it was 'chilling' but denied that it was advocating genocide or something. Big mistake. Always use words like 'genocide' 'fascist' etc to be safe.

That's just my rough understanding. I haven't bothered looking up exactly what he said. Everyone will eventually fail to be ideologically pure enough no matter how safe they think they are.

Going back to the Owen Jones comedy sketch, there was another aspect of this I thought was particularly funny, and particularly telling. Multiple wokies piled in on Jones, demanding that he remove his pronouns from his Twitter bio, because he was not a trans ally. (There were screenshots of this going around but sadly I can't find one now.)

This is definitely saying the quiet part out loud. The public exhibition of ones "preferred pronouns" is a badge of allegiance to the trans cause, and one whose revocation can be demanded of transgressors.
__________________
"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 9th June 2022, 07:35 AM   #129
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Going back to the Owen Jones comedy sketch, there was another aspect of this I thought was particularly funny, and particularly telling. Multiple wokies piled in on Jones, demanding that he remove his pronouns from his Twitter bio, because he was not a trans ally. (There were screenshots of this going around but sadly I can't find one now.)

This is definitely saying the quiet part out loud. The public exhibition of ones "preferred pronouns" is a badge of allegiance to the trans cause, and one whose revocation can be demanded of transgressors.
I guess maybe it was during this period that he seemed to do a pivot and try and sell himself as an approachable, open minded Leftie on YouTube, standing up to the MSM.

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


The comments on the video are fun.
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 9th June 2022, 08:07 AM   #130
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,241
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Going back to the Owen Jones comedy sketch, there was another aspect of this I thought was particularly funny, and particularly telling. Multiple wokies piled in on Jones, demanding that he remove his pronouns from his Twitter bio, because he was not a trans ally. (There were screenshots of this going around but sadly I can't find one now.)

This is definitely saying the quiet part out loud. The public exhibition of ones "preferred pronouns" is a badge of allegiance to the trans cause, and one whose revocation can be demanded of transgressors.

It makes perfect sense in the context of the entire movement being a proxy for class. They're telling Jones he used the wrong fork, so he can no longer call himself a gentleman.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 9th June 2022, 09:00 AM   #131
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
This is definitely saying the quiet part out loud. The public exhibition of ones "preferred pronouns" is a badge of allegiance to the trans cause, and one whose revocation can be demanded of transgressors.
It seems more like saying the out loud part out loud. "Pronouns in the bio" among cisgendered people has always been an overt gesture of support towards trans people. I'm not entirely sure what's supposed to be wrong with that. It does not entail an intellectual commitment.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
It makes perfect sense in the context of the entire movement being a proxy for class. They're telling Jones he used the wrong fork, so he can no longer call himself a gentleman.
Or any other shibboleth you could name. Basic human stuff.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 9th June 2022 at 09:08 AM.
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 9th June 2022, 03:48 PM   #132
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,413
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
It seems more like saying the out loud part out loud. "Pronouns in the bio" among cisgendered people has always been an overt gesture of support towards trans people. I'm not entirely sure what's supposed to be wrong with that. It does not entail an intellectual commitment.


Or any other shibboleth you could name. Basic human stuff.

Indeed. And what's perhaps more interesting still is the way in which one's opposition to a particular group or cause can lead one to mock and belittle that group or cause on a more-or-less unconditional basis (while, of course, entirely overlooking or handwaving anything similar that occurs on one's own "side"....).

As you say: basic human stuff, I guess. But not altogether befitting of a search for truth and societal decency/inclusivity. Plus Áa change.
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 9th June 2022, 03:52 PM   #133
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,413
PS: And all of this rather tends to expose the "Oh I'm totally on-board with real rights and protections for transgender people, and I fully recognise the validity of their identity, but it's just this small area about potential risks to ciswomen in certain environments that I'm concerned about" stuff as the lie that it really is, n'est-ce pas......?
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 9th June 2022, 04:06 PM   #134
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Indeed. And what's perhaps more interesting still is the way in which one's opposition to a particular group or cause can lead one to mock and belittle that group or cause on a more-or-less unconditional basis (while, of course, entirely overlooking or handwaving anything similar that occurs on one's own "side"....).
Shibboleths also often serve to express hostility to an out-group in addition to membership in an in-group. There are some good examples in this thread--"trans-identifying male" is a shibboleth associated with the gender critical movement, "gender ideology" with the anti-gender movement.
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 9th June 2022, 04:21 PM   #135
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,413
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Shibboleths also often serve to express hostility to an out-group in addition to membership in an in-group. There are some good examples in this thread--"trans-identifying male" is a shibboleth associated with the gender critical movement, "gender ideology" with the anti-gender movement.

Oh indeed. There are by now various entrenched dog whistles, mostly employed by those towards the extreme ends on both sides: "TERF", "adult human female", and so on. And these terms swiftly became weaponised, as indeed they have at times been within this thread. As I said before: I don't think these dog-whistle mantras are any help (in fact, they're a hindrance) when it comes to conducting any kind of reasonable debate about transgender rights (and if/why there are any constraints or limitations to those rights in particular areas).
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 9th June 2022, 04:32 PM   #136
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,951
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Shibboleths also often serve to express hostility to an out-group in addition to membership in an in-group. There are some good examples in this thread--"trans-identifying male" is a shibboleth associated with the gender critical movement, "gender ideology" with the anti-gender movement.
I'm not sure what you think the difference is between 'gender critical' and 'anti-gender'. Both are critical of the ideological position that self-declared gender should replace sex (for everyone, not just trans people) in all areas of society, law and policy. The epistemology underpinning gender identity ideology has its roots in postmodern theory, which is incompatible with science and scientific skepticism.

Using accurate terms is not expressing hostility to an outgroup, it is expressing hostility to an idea. The approach of TRAs is to frame criticism of ideology as criticism of people in order to suppress dissent and 'win' without needing any argument, debate or evidence. This is characteristic of fundamentalist movements and cults (for example, scientologists framed criticism of scientology as religious bigotry in order to bully critics into silence).

You are aware that there are many trans people (especially those with dysphoria who medically transitioned before current trends) who oppose 'queer theory' / gender identity theory, do not explain their experience of dysphoria in these terms, and consider it harmful, right? For example, the gender dysphoria alliance. Of course, these people get treated by fundamentalists they same way as they treat other critics.
__________________
"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 9th June 2022, 06:44 PM   #137
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
I'm not sure what you think the difference is between 'gender critical' and 'anti-gender'.
The gender critical movement grew out of feminist discourse surrounding transgendered people, and tends to be fairly centrist or center-left on other issues. 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.

Quote:
Both are critical of the ideological position that self-declared gender should replace sex (for everyone, not just trans people) in all areas of society, law and policy.
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.

Quote:
The epistemology underpinning gender identity ideology has its roots in postmodern theory, which is incompatible with science and scientific skepticism.
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?

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.

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).

Quote:
Using accurate terms is not expressing hostility to an outgroup, it is expressing hostility to an idea.
"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. "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.

Quote:
The approach of TRAs is to frame criticism of ideology as criticism of people in order to suppress dissent and 'win' without needing any argument, debate or evidence. This is characteristic of fundamentalist movements and cults (for example, scientologists framed criticism of scientology as religious bigotry in order to bully critics into silence).
Here we have another example of someone attacking an ideology without bothering to confirm that the person they're talking to holds it. But of course, I'm not merely "framing" the debate this way--these terms have traceable origins. "Trans-identified woman" originated in a sense precisely opposite to the sense that gender-critical feminists have given to it, so it's not remotely plausible that this term was adopted or (continues to be used) for accuracy or clarity. It's also widely regarded as offensive (and not just by TRAs or transgendered people). Continuing to use it in light of this is akin to defending the use of "negro" as more accurate than "black", given that "black" does not exclusively refer to black Africans in English. "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist" was coined as a neutral descriptor, but I don't use it, because it's clearly derogatory.

And yeah, people in cults sometimes disingenuously treat an attack on an idea or practice as an attack on the religion itself or the people who hold it. But it's also true that people sometimes really do intentionally attack others and disingenously foist it off as merely being objective and accurate. And another thing people in cults do is deny that they're in cults. So this is a pretty useless rubric.

Quote:
You are aware that there are many trans people (especially those with dysphoria who medically transitioned before current trends) who oppose 'queer theory' / gender identity theory, do not explain their experience of dysphoria in these terms, and consider it harmful, right? For example, the gender dysphoria alliance. Of course, these people get treated by fundamentalists they same way as they treat other critics.
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.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 9th June 2022 at 08:08 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 9th June 2022, 06:52 PM   #138
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,194
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I don't think these dog-whistle mantras are any help (in fact, they're a hindrance) when it comes to conducting any kind of reasonable debate about transgender rights...
Tell us who should be eligible to play top-level women's rugby without using the words "adult," "human," and "female."
__________________
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 9th June 2022, 07:05 PM   #139
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Tell us who should be eligible to play top-level women's rugby without using the words "adult," "human," and "female."
Just for the sake of argument, ciswomen.
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 9th June 2022, 07:13 PM   #140
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,194
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Just for the sake of argument, ciswomen.
Why exclude non-binary adult females like Quinn?
__________________
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 9th June 2022, 07:24 PM   #141
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Why exclude non-binary adult females like Quinn?
Like I said, just for the sake of argument.

But if you want an inclusive policy, cisgendered women; and transmen, transwomen, and non-binary and intersex people who perform in the same range as cisgendered women.

But why does this matter? Nobody objects to the words "adult", "human" or "female" in isolation. They object to the lexeme when used as an intentional provocation.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 9th June 2022 at 07:58 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 10th June 2022, 12:04 AM   #142
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
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.
So what's your view on changing the definition of homosexual to

Quote:
describe someone who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender
?
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 10th June 2022, 12:28 AM   #143
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,890
There are so many "new" words, terms, acronyms, abbreviations* and names in this thread (many probably made up) that I can't make sense of it anymore. It is too ******* hard to read. I need a glossary on my second monitor. I'm not joking.

For Trump supporters:
An abbreviation is a shortened version of a word or phrase - example: KKK
__________________
Thanks and bye.
mgidm86 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 10th June 2022, 12:57 AM   #144
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
So what's your view on changing the definition of homosexual to?
I would first say "language doesn't really work that way." I would then say a better definition would be something like "Someone who has a romantic or sexual attraction towards someone of the same sex or gender."

Last edited by mumblethrax; 10th June 2022 at 01:20 AM.
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 10th June 2022, 02:39 AM   #145
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,938
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
But why does this matter? Nobody objects to the words "adult", "human" or "female" in isolation. They object to the lexeme when used as an intentional provocation.
Why is the traditional definition suddenly offensive? I donít accept that this can be made offensive by the dictates of a radical minority, and the rest of us have to tiptoe around it and avoid using the traditional definition out of deference. Especially when they canít even come up with an alternative.
__________________
"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 10th June 2022, 03:05 AM   #146
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why is the traditional definition suddenly offensive?
Do you not understand what "when used as an intentional provocation means?"

Honestly, the feigned stupidity in this thread is off the charts.

Quote:
Especially when they can’t even come up with an alternative.
Trust me: if there's one thing "they" are good at, it's coming up with alternatives.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 10th June 2022 at 03:08 AM.
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 10th June 2022, 03:10 AM   #147
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
I would first say "language doesn't really work that way." I would then say a better definition would be something like "Someone who has a romantic or sexual attraction towards someone of the same sex or gender."
Which, in the case of laws preventing discrimination of grounds of sexual orientation, meets your definition

Quote:
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.
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 10th June 2022, 03:13 AM   #148
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Which, in the case of laws preventing discrimination of grounds of sexual orientation, meets your definition
How does "sex or gender" abolish sex? And no, changing the definition of sexual orientation would not abolish sex as a protected class and replace it with gender identity. Not that either sexual orientation or gender identity are protected classes at the federal level in the US in the first place.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 10th June 2022 at 03:48 AM.
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 10th June 2022, 04:43 AM   #149
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,938
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Do you not understand what "when used as an intentional provocation means?"
I donít accept what you consider as ďprovocationĒ is actually provocation. I donít accept that wanting to keep a traditional definition is somehow an act of aggression. Itís not a matter of not understanding, itís a matter of you donít get to decide my intent for me. And if you get offended by reasonable statements, thatís your problem, not mine.

Quote:
Trust me: if there's one thing "they" are good at, it's coming up with alternatives.
No, they arenít. Trans activists actively avoid giving a definition for ďwomanĒ. People on the left often arenít allowed to give a definition (see the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings, or Matt Walshís movie). Hell, the easiest way to refute me would have been to provide such a definition from the radicals, but you didnít. You might have your own personal definition, but I doubt you can provide me one which the radicals can accept.
__________________
"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 10th June 2022, 05:32 AM   #150
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,194
Five percent of young adults identify as trans or nonbinary

https://twitter.com/jessesingal/stat...07510204813312

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-young-adults/
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 10th June 2022 at 06:08 AM.
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 10th June 2022, 05:37 AM   #151
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I don’t accept what you consider as “provocation” is actually provocation.
Since I didn't tell you what I consider to be provocation, I don't see how this is even possible.

Quote:
I don’t accept that wanting to keep a traditional definition is somehow an act of aggression.
Since I didn't tell you that keeping a traditional definition is somehow an act of aggression, this is irrelevant.

Quote:
It’s not a matter of not understanding, it’s a matter of you don’t get to decide my intent for me. And if you get offended by reasonable statements, that’s your problem, not mine.
It must be a matter of not understanding, since I did not say I get to decide your intent for you. I also didn't say that I find "adult human female" objectionable.

Quote:
No, they aren’t. Trans activists actively avoid giving a definition for “woman”.
I don't think they do. They just give an operational definition. A woman is someone who answers the question "Are you a woman?" with "Yes."

Quote:
People on the left often aren’t allowed to give a definition (see the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings, or Matt Walsh’s movie).
"People on the left"

Quote:
But it turns out those same Republicans on the Judiciary Committee don’t agree on how to define a woman, and some wouldn’t ― or couldn’t ― give a definition when HuffPost asked Tuesday.

“I don’t have anything for you on that,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.).

“I’m not going to indulge you,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).
Politicians being cagey is nothing new.

And Matt Walsh? No thanks.

Quote:
Hell, the easiest way to refute me would have been to provide such a definition from the radicals, but you didn’t.
Because you didn't ask me to.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 10th June 2022 at 05:59 AM.
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 10th June 2022, 06:14 AM   #152
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,194
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
But if you want an inclusive policy, cisgendered women; and transmen, transwomen, and non-binary and intersex people who perform in the same range as cisgendered women.
Now I'm curious as to why you're excluding cisgendered men who perform in the same range.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
They object to the lexeme when used as an intentional provocation.
Those who find a dictionary definition unduly provocative need to reexamine their own stance, especially in an argument about delimiting concepts and defining terms.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 10th June 2022 at 06:25 AM.
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 10th June 2022, 06:21 AM   #153
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Now I'm curious as to why you're excluding cisgendered men who perform in the same range.
In order to avoid overwhelming the division with cisgendered men.

Quote:
Those who find dictionary definitions provocative need to reexamine their own stance
Another person who does not understand what "when used as an intentional provocation" means.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 10th June 2022 at 06:25 AM.
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 10th June 2022, 06:40 AM   #154
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Self ID is pretty much meaningless and irrelevant, as we have seen. What we really need is much more attention paid to the number of young adults who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and the number of young adults who have been diagnosed with autogynaephilia. Then we can talk about "interesting new data".
__________________
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 10th June 2022, 06:56 AM   #155
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Self ID is pretty much meaningless and irrelevant, as we have seen. What we really need is much more attention paid to the number of young adults who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and the number of young adults who have been diagnosed with autogynaephilia. Then we can talk about "interesting new data".
Yes, that would be a better use of resources. But I feel I should point out that autogynephilia is putatively a kind of gender dyphoria--there's no separate diagnosis.
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 10th June 2022, 07:02 AM   #156
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,938
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
I don't think they do. They just give an operational definition. A woman is someone who answers the question "Are you a woman?" with "Yes."
That is not an honest definition, and they don't even believe it themselves.

Quote:
Politicians being cagey is nothing new.
Sure. But being cagey about this particular subject is. What politicians are cagey about tells you something.

Quote:
And Matt Walsh? No thanks.
Of course. But here's the thing: what's interesting isn't what he says. What's interesting is what the people he interviewed said or often didn't say.

Quote:
Because you didn't ask me to.
Ok, I'm asking you now. Provide a real, non-circular definition. Your above one isn't.
__________________
"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 10th June 2022, 07:04 AM   #157
Olmstead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,128
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post

I don't think they do. They just give an operational definition. A woman is someone who answers the question "Are you a woman?" with "Yes."

Operational what now? The word you're looking for is circular.
Olmstead 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 10th June 2022, 07:18 AM   #158
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That is not an honest definition, and they don't even believe it themselves.
It is an honest definition. And they do believe it, although they often don't do a good job of defining it. It's what gender identity is.

Quote:
Sure. But being cagey about this particular subject is. What politicians are cagey about tells you something.
Nothing I didn't already know. But what happened to "people on the left"?

Quote:
Of course. But here's the thing: what's interesting isn't what he says. What's interesting is what the people he interviewed said or often didn't say.
No, that's not particularly interesting. At least not interesting enough to delve into the Daily Wire sewer.

Quote:
Ok, I'm asking you now. Provide a real, non-circular definition. Your above one isn't.
It isn't circular, if you understand what an operational definition is.

My definition would be something like:

1. an adult human female
2. an adult human who identifies as a woman1

(and then a bunch of other definitions of woman that no one's really interested in)

Last edited by mumblethrax; 10th June 2022 at 07:20 AM.
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 10th June 2022, 07:22 AM   #159
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
Operational what now? The word you're looking for is circular.
Operational definition. No, it's not circular.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 10th June 2022 at 07:35 AM.
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 10th June 2022, 07:31 AM   #160
Olmstead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,128
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post

It isn't circular, if you understand what an operational definition is.

My definition would be something like:

1. an adult human female
2. an adult human who identifies as a woman1
A woman2 is an adult human who identifies as an adult human female?

Fun. Next question, how can you identify as something you're not?
Olmstead 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 03:29 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.