IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 30th October 2022, 10:25 AM   #1161
TheGoldcountry
Philosopher
 
TheGoldcountry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,364
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
It's only cognitive dissonance if you believe that the other side can never have anything good or correct to say on any issue.
Have you been on the internet before, sir? Oh, the things you'll see!
__________________
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505
TheGoldcountry 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 30th October 2022, 10:27 AM   #1162
Paul2
Philosopher
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,685
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Exactly, somebody must choose. I think to some degree it ends up functioning as a way of avoiding responsibility for the final choice, even though they are in fact choosing just the same.
There's no choosing in the sense of determining who is going to win after the process is run.

I think you're saying that a neutral process - not knowing who is in what favored or unfavored position - is avoiding responsibility for determining who wins. Do I have that right? I ask because when I state it that way, my eyebrows are plastered to the top of my forehead.
__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice.

Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell
Paul2 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 30th October 2022, 10:28 AM   #1163
Paul2
Philosopher
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,685
Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry View Post
Have you been on the internet before, sir? Oh, the things you'll see!
I've heard that some people stumble on the most amazing things when Googling. where do you suggest I start?

__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice.

Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell
Paul2 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 30th October 2022, 10:28 AM   #1164
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,002
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Loving the fact that you cannot (or will not?) see that transgender animus is in fact the "natural" right-wing reactionary point of view. And that therefore it's actually you - who, on the basis of what you've written, appears to hate everything that the right wing stands for - who seemingly cannot come to terms with the cognitive dissonance that you hold a right-wing reactionary viewpoint on transgender identity issues (while the prevailing progressive left-wing view is very much in favour of transgender rights & protections).

I suppose the Daily Mail (and most of its readership) and the Catholic Church are "stopped clocks that tell the time correctly twice a day" when it comes to transgender animus too, eh? I thought the cherry-picking season started in around June, but it seems to have come early round these parts....
What's completely absent from this post is any attempt to actually address the issue on its merits. You're trying to guilt trip someone into abandoning a deeply held position on the basis of guilt by association. That's not likely to work.

In fact, this sort of approach also runs a serious risk of backfiring. If opposition to trans activism is inextricably linked to the right, but someone who is otherwise a leftist concludes that this opposition is correct and justified, they might start to wonder what else the right might be correct about. If you don't allow people to stay on the left and hold these views, they're not going to abandon these views, they're going to abandon the left.

You might be tempted to say good riddance, but you also might end up facing a "more selective" voter appeal.
__________________
"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 30th October 2022, 10:31 AM   #1165
Nick Terry
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,132
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Loving the fact that you cannot (or will not?) see that transgender animus is in fact the "natural" right-wing reactionary point of view. And that therefore it's actually you - who, on the basis of what you've written, appears to hate everything that the right wing stands for - who seemingly cannot come to terms with the cognitive dissonance that you hold a right-wing reactionary viewpoint on transgender identity issues (while the prevailing progressive left-wing view is very much in favour of transgender rights & protections).

I suppose the Daily Mail (and most of its readership) and the Catholic Church are "stopped clocks that tell the time correctly twice a day" when it comes to transgender animus too, eh? I thought the cherry-picking season started in around June, but it seems to have come early round these parts....
Would that everything were so neatly divided between left and right. The slur 'TERF' is spelled out as 'trans-exclusionary radical feminist', and it's left-wing feminists who were and are at the forefront of criticising gender identity ideology and advocacy for self-ID for the ways in which they conflict with women's rights.

Politically, it is playing with fire for the centre-left to embrace uncritically self-ID and the most extreme manifestations of gender identity ideology, as it plays into the hands of hard right culture warriors, allowing them to stereotype the left as captured by identity politics to the point of lunacy. Not only does this alienate a considerable number of women from the left, it imposes a patronising vocabulary that minority communities, the working class and many others literally cannot understand, because it is so rebarbative and alienating.

Transgender rights and protections are already enshrined into the 2010 Equality Act under the category of gender reassignment, one of the protected characteristics. Anyone making the slighest step towards gender reassignment - i.e. anyone who declares themselves to be transgender - is protected from discrimination. So-called TERFs, gender identity critics and sex realists accept that trans people exist and that they have the right to be free of discrimination.

The dispute arises with the broadening of gender identity to erase the very term 'women', while paradoxically insisting that 'transwomen are women', to eliminate single-sex spaces (including rape crisis centres and domestic violence shelters), and to so loosen the definition of trans identity as to allow anyone to simply declare themseves the opposite sex through self-ID. None of these things are 'rights' in and of themselves; they generally conflict with women's rights, so they cannot be accepted without debate or discussion. And that's a left-wing position because it's one argued by quite a sizeable number who identify themselves as on the left.

I do not think that centre-left parties should be encouraging the teaching of what amounts to science denialism in schools, by deemphasising sex and replacing this with very vague notions of 'gender identity'. I do think that schools should be teaching inclusiveness and acceptance around sexual orientation as well as gender noncomformity. I think the way this is being done is making the lives of some children and teenagers worse by confusing them, and contributing to the social contagion bubble that has clearly arisen in the past decade.

When the actual medical experts in the NHS are now sensibly limiting uncritical affirmation of gender dysphoria and postponing puberty blockers, hormones and surgery until adulthood or restricting them to properly controlled research, it is quite important not to encourage children and teenagers to believe the delusion that medical interventions are a magic wand that will transform them from a girl into a boy. It is certainly very important to inform them clearly of the costs of this magic wand to their future health and their future potential for sexual pleasure and reproduction.


Nah, sorry, I've been a Guardian reader for over thirty years, never voted Tory, and hold radical opinions on all kinds of issues. Deciding not to swallow gender identity bollocks doesn't make me either 'reactionary' or 'transphobic'.

Not once in your interventions on this thread, btw, do you ever bother to spell things out beyond meaningless mantras. I fully support 'transgender rights and protection' as I understand them - but apparently I must disagree with what 'transgender rights and protection' really mean, or maybe it's just you never define what you mean by those words. Care to enlighten everyone?
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry 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 30th October 2022, 10:36 AM   #1166
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,094
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
There's no choosing in the sense of determining who is going to win after the process is run.

I think you're saying that a neutral process - not knowing who is in what favored or unfavored position - is avoiding responsibility for determining who wins. Do I have that right? I ask because when I state it that way, my eyebrows are plastered to the top of my forehead.
No, apologies. That is me being unclear. My daughter and her friends know how the choosing game works, but they pretend not to to avoid admitting they are explicitly choosing which child will be IT. Probably mentioning that just confused things, but it popped into my head.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2022, 10:37 AM   #1167
Paul2
Philosopher
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,685
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I don't know, but even then... somebody has to assert some notion of what is neutral and decide that it is neutral. This is a bit of an artificial case, but the more real world you get, the more you are just smuggling your own ideological notion of fairness into it so you are just coming back to the same problem. There is a video I like of a Pinker talk being picked apart on this point. If we regard randomly choosing where to start as neutral, then that is only because both of our ideologies agree on the point. The difficulty arises when ideologies disagree, at that point there is no neutral.
A random process of choosing which position to start counting (assuming that everyone is in position before the randomization) is, by definition, neutral with regard to position (for both the definition of "random" as well as "neutral").

Ironically, you are postmodern-ing this issue by claiming that agreement here can only be ideological.

ETA: Even more ironically, your putting the definition of "neutral" up for grabs recalls the trans activists' changing the definition of "woman." Strange bedfellows.
__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice.

Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

Last edited by Paul2; 30th October 2022 at 10:43 AM.
Paul2 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 30th October 2022, 10:46 AM   #1168
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,094
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What's completely absent from this post is any attempt to actually address the issue on its merits. You're trying to guilt trip someone into abandoning a deeply held position on the basis of guilt by association. That's not likely to work.

In fact, this sort of approach also runs a serious risk of backfiring. If opposition to trans activism is inextricably linked to the right, but someone who is otherwise a leftist concludes that this opposition is correct and justified, they might start to wonder what else the right might be correct about. If you don't allow people to stay on the left and hold these views, they're not going to abandon these views, they're going to abandon the left.

You might be tempted to say good riddance, but you also might end up facing a "more selective" voter appeal.
If there is any kind of ideology, any kind of world view motivating our support of these positions, surely they are to some degree connected? Obviously most people don't think about this stuff very hard, but these positions are connected. Tactically, a left wing party might support some right wing position to win an election, but I don't see how you can tactically make a left wing position right wing or the other way around.

A lot of the arguments I see in this thread against trans-activists are conservative arguments based on breaking down meaningful traditional structures and the dangers and downsides of granting rights claims. These arguments are made by people who are otherwise generally progressive. That does seem worth commenting on.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2022, 10:55 AM   #1169
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,094
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
A random process of choosing which position to start counting (assuming that everyone is in position before the randomization) is, by definition, neutral with regard to position (for both the definition of "random" as well as "neutral").

Ironically, you are postmodern-ing this issue by claiming that agreement here can only be ideological.
Oh, certainly. I don't think post modernism was talking about nothing. The modern world did, after all generate a bunch of problems that then are the subject of post modernism. You can't organise a society on this "everything is relative, there is no truth" way of thinking though. It's like trying to live your life as if free will didn't exist. It's a type of madness. Some culture's idea of what is reasonable and what is fair have to be treated as if they were handed down by God, and obviously I have preferences about what that should be.

Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
ETA: Even more ironically, your putting the definition of "neutral" up for grabs recalls the trans activists' changing the definition of "woman." Strange bedfellows.
:-) indeed. In a world without God, it's down to humans to decide what is fair, what a woman is and so on. I think the trans activists definition of woman is terrible and will not add to the sum of human happiness, so I am against it. Their definition isn't "wrong" though. This is what happens when you kill God, we can't even nail down what a woman is any more.

Last edited by shuttlt; 30th October 2022 at 11:00 AM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2022, 10:59 AM   #1170
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,292
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Rolfe will be thrilled to hear this.

Actually, those who are well informed about the political process are pretty confident that the bill will never make it to the statute book for precisely the reason that the cross-border implications have a huge effect on England. It will be struck down before it gets that far.

So there's one positive thing about the union, I suppose.
__________________
"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 30th October 2022, 11:03 AM   #1171
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,002
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
If there is any kind of ideology, any kind of world view motivating our support of these positions, surely they are to some degree connected?
In principle, I would argue that even ideology is not enough to explain the correlations in public opinion across issues.

In practice, basically nobody really thinks through all of their opinions in great depth. It's too much work, too many issues, not enough time in the day. We take shortcuts, and one of those shortcuts is to adopt positions of people we trust. Another is to adopt the beliefs of the group we want to be part of, which is what LJ is trying to exploit (but it won't work here). That's a big part of why so many political positions end up highly correlated even though in principle they really don't need to be.

But once someone sees a position from a side they formerly trusted that they are convinced is wrong, and in a way that really matters, then that trust is broken. And then they won't adopt positions of agreement by default. They will start giving alternative arguments consideration that they never would have before.

I experienced that post-9/11. Recently out of college, I was largely "liberal by default". But the equivocation about who was to blame for 9/11, all the self-recrimination about blowback, etc. shook me up. I could never be liberal by default again. I still don't really think of myself as conservative, but I'm labelled that around here just because I'm not liberal.
__________________
"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 30th October 2022, 11:09 AM   #1172
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,094
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
In principle, I would argue that even ideology is not enough to explain the correlations in public opinion across issues.

In practice, basically nobody really thinks through all of their opinions in great depth. It's too much work, too many issues, not enough time in the day. We take shortcuts, and one of those shortcuts is to adopt positions of people we trust. Another is to adopt the beliefs of the group we want to be part of, which is what LJ is trying to exploit (but it won't work here). That's a big part of why so many political positions end up highly correlated even though in principle they really don't need to be.

But once someone sees a position from a side they formerly trusted that they are convinced is wrong, and in a way that really matters, then that trust is broken. And then they won't adopt positions of agreement by default. They will start giving alternative arguments consideration that they never would have before.

I experienced that post-9/11. Recently out of college, I was largely "liberal by default". But the equivocation about who was to blame for 9/11, all the self-recrimination about blowback, etc. shook me up. I could never be liberal by default again. I still don't really think of myself as conservative, but I'm labelled that around here just because I'm not liberal.
Sure, but one needs to feel like ones positions fit into a world view, feel somewhat consistent, fit into a narrative about the world and history that makes sense of them. Of course most people spend next to no time confirming this, and do a horrible job if they are asked about it in the street. Once one starts supporting positions that fall outside the narrative of "your side", it seems to me like it would be generally undermining of of the whole narrative, the whole world view.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2022, 11:56 AM   #1173
Paul2
Philosopher
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,685
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Oh, certainly. I don't think post modernism was talking about nothing. The modern world did, after all generate a bunch of problems that then are the subject of post modernism. You can't organise a society on this "everything is relative, there is no truth" way of thinking though. It's like trying to live your life as if free will didn't exist. It's a type of madness.
Nothing in Rawls demands there is no truth and everything is relative.
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Some culture's idea of what is reasonable and what is fair have to be treated as if they were handed down by God, and obviously I have preferences about what that should be.
Agreed. But that doesn't mean nothing can be neutral with respect to X.
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
:-) indeed. In a world without God, it's down to humans to decide what is fair, what a woman is and so on. I think the trans activists definition of woman is terrible and will not add to the sum of human happiness, so I am against it. Their definition isn't "wrong" though. This is what happens when you kill God, we can't even nail down what a woman is any more.
Agreed, except to the extent that a definition, in relation to other definitions, may be be incoherent or illogical. I think you and I agree that that is what is happening with some trans activists (Boudicca99 said she was a biological woman).

That sometimes it is very difficult to determine fairness doesn't mean it always is. Rawls' process plays out the same for all participants (see how I didn't use the word "neutral" there?), so for some very common understandings of neutral, Rawls' process is neutral with respect to position, and so is neutral with respect to determining who will be It. You can re-define "neutral" all you want, but the ostensible purpose of the schoolyard process is to have it play out the same for everyone, with no one having a greater or lesser chance at being It, and that's what Rawls' process accomplishes.
__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice.

Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell
Paul2 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 30th October 2022, 11:59 AM   #1174
Nick Terry
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,132
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
It's not a slippery slope.
Going to break up replies (not para by para though) - you came up with an argument about 1 in 10 people being a murderer in a specific space therefore all should be imprisoned. This is a misleading analogy to make and thus, created a slippery slope.

The consequences in your analogy are not identical to the consequences in the issue at hand, i.e. whether to exclude transwomen from women-only spaces.

The flipside of that issue is - whether to preserve women-only spaces, ensure a reasonable equality of access to them, or make sure that women who really don't want to welcome men into their spaces can be obliged.

Thus, if a woman's bathroom is turned into a unisex bathroom while the men's bathroom next to it is not, this is a clear violation of the equality of access principle.

If women are prohibited by law from excluding men from rape crisis centres and domestic violence shelters, because the men identify as women, this has rather specific consequences independent of whether the transwomen (or free riders exploiting self-ID) feel hurt by this. There's a legal challenge right now in Sussex here in the UK to ensure that just one rape crisis centre is women-only, accepting that transwomen will be welcome at other centres in the same county.

Transwomen athletes are being either included or excluded from women's sports, not because they are necessarily creepy AGPs who want to engage in dick-waving in changing rooms, but in the interests of fairness and safety. Safety is why both rugby associations in the UK banned transwomen from participating in women's rugby this year. Swimming has now banned transwomen from participating in international competitions if they experienced any part of male puberty, after reviewing the evidence.

Quote:
The question is whether we should deny the rights of one group because of the misbehaviour of another group if the two groups can't be separated. Or should we deny an individual in a group the opportunity to exercise their rights, just because it is a detriment to the group? We believe in universal principles here, don't we? This argument has been made to me in defence of feminism before now.
No, there are more questions than this around the principle of self-ID. Identifying as a member of a group is insufficient grounds to accept the self-identifier into the group in a number of cases in society, especially if one is seeking to do this to gain access to restricted spaces or privileges. One cannot identify as a child if one is an adult, those who pass themselves off as aristocrats, the wealthy, army officers, Vietnam veterans or as ethnic minorities who are found out tend not to fare well.

There are conversely many groups one can identify into quite freely - sexual orientation, for example. In employment and job applications, equality, diversity and inclusion legislation and company policies might allow some to decide to identify as a minority or protected group to help them get shortlisted for an interview - the organisation isn't then obliged to give them the job (I've seen that happen in job presentation/interview panels) or promote them. In other cases that might happen. Doing so doesn't result in explicitly direct harms (there are usually many candidates for good jobs or internal promotion opportunities), while equality legislation also protects others against discrimination, or enables them to mount challenges. If someone declares themselves to be a transwoman when applying for jobs or once in post, then they can do so, just as they can declare themselves to be lesbian, Christian, disabled or any other protected characteristic.

There have been cases where a transwoman took up a position as a women's officer in UK organisations - a sex-specific role that can be restricted to women by law. They lacked a gender recognition certificate so were legally still men. This is a good example of a violation of existing equality legislation. Self-ID as a principle would blow open other legally recognised exceptions, or make it impossible to offer support for one or the other sex, e.g. scholarships.

'Rights' also can be enforced - and this is the other problematic aspect of talking in very vague abstract term about rights. There are proposals to turn 'misgendering' into a hate crime in some jurisdictions. But this criminalises speech, which automatically comes into conflict with freedom of speech, generally enshrined into the constitutions and legal systems of all western societies. There are ways one can avoid using 'preferred pronouns' in direct and written conversations, and this will likely become ostentatiously common to avoid using he/she/they in circumstances where this might be implicitly or explicitly policed.

In the UK, gender critical views have been recognised in a court ruling as a protected belief under equality legislation - so the insistence that 'transwomen are women' cannot be legally compelled from individuals exercising freedom of opinion and speech, for now.

That leaves the classic bathroom/changing room access discussion. Men who identify as women would like to acccess women's toilets and changing rooms, or are allowed to do so in a variety of jurisdictions. They are a minority, whose desires are cast in terms of 'rights', but these conflict with the desires and rights of women, at the very least with a minority of women who may decide to object. Both sides appeal incidentally to the dangers of using the 'wrong' bathrooms - transwomen suggest they are at risk of attack by other men, while women note cases where men claiming to be transwomen have exploited the loophole to engage in voyeurism, exhibitionism/flashing and sexual assault.

The problem with self-ID is that it makes it impossible to define transwomen as a group in such a way as to exclude other men who wish to exploit the new loophole.

In cases where women's toilets are replaced by unisex toilets while men's toilets remain men's toilets, the loophole is extended to every male irrespective of gender identification, while preserving a male-only privileged space.

The logical solution is to ensure greater provision of gender-neutral spaces - multiplying existing gender-neutral disabled facilities - to the extent that there is an actual need to accommodate a greater than negligible minority of transwomen.

In terms of rights, the rights of women, as the numerically greater group who are also the physically weaker and more vulnerable, should logically prevail over the rights of men identifying as women, in cases where these clash. Security personnel and police should not side with transwomen or men simply claiming to be women against the views of women, and transwomen should remove themselves if they are making women uncomfortable with their presence or behaviour. However laws might be changed to accommodate trans identities, then indecent exposure and other laws on sexual offences must still be enforced and should not fall by the wayside. Since transwomen who are trying to pass should be entering cubicles in toilets, there is no good reason for them to expose themselves in such situations anyway.

The most widely reported case concerned a sauna (the Wii Spa case), while there is a legal precedent from *Canada* that women offering waxing services are not obliged to serve men identifying as women (the Yaniv case). The balance should tip towards respecting the desires and rights of women not to have to share intimate spaces with natal males. In many other adjacent cases there are existing mixed-sex options (eg public swimming pools mostly provide mixed hours, and only a limited number of women-only hours or children-only hours).

The question of whether transwomen are women and should compete as women in sports, and thus which changing rooms they should use, at schools or in professional sports, illustrates how these issues converge. There are three levels to the question
1) are they legally women/can they identify as women?,
2) should natal males be competing alongside natal females in sports,
3) should they be sharing changing rooms?

Societies as well as sporting associations are starting to offer very different answers to these three questions, so there are already inconsistencies and contradictions, some of which might be open to legal challenge if self-ID and the view that 'transwomen are women' wins out. One can imagine scenarios where transwomen's legal status 'as women' is recognised (via a self-ID provision or an eased statute) but they still cannot compete in specific women's sports, so the question of whether they can enter women's changing rooms becomes potentially moot.

The biggest area of conflict will be in schools, especially those that encourage trans identifying children to use the changing rooms of their identified gender rather than their natal sex. Since the global trend generally restricts surgical transition to adults, trans girls will still have penises. Especially during puberty and adolescence, it seems to be a very bad idea to encourage or allow such genderswapping of changing rooms, to reduce discomfort first and foremost, both among girls as well as among trans boys who used puberty blockers.

If the trans social contagion bubble pops and deflates, as it might do before long, this will be less of an issue. But it will hurt the overall trans cause if a future generation of teenage boys exploits a self-ID, affirm-your-identity loophole to enter girls' spaces and act like, well, teenage boys. On balance, it is surely better to encourage other teenage boys to be more accepting of gender noncomformity in their own spaces, and to police any bullying, as one sincerely hopes is already the case (with gay teenagers and others). The same goes for teenage girls vis-a-vis trans boys, of course. Rigid and early sorting 'by gender' is probably more harmful in the short and long term, but I'd welcome detailed research on this issue to see how it is affecting actual children and teenagers.

Gender identity for children and teenagers also potentially conflicts with parental rights or wishes - the balance currently seems too heavily tipped away from parents, and the reported practice in some cases of hiding a new gender identity from parents raises huge red flags. In cases where parental opposition to identifying as trans is considered child abuse, this seems to have gone entirely too far, while there is insufficient attention being paid to safeguarding of children in schools. Children are rightly denied a whole range of rights accorded to adults, while also exploiting workarounds to access materials they're legally prohibited from accessing (eg porn, alcohol, some drugs in some jurisdictions, tobacco, motor vehichles).

Discussing children and teenagers shows how 'universal rights' might be too abstract to properly address the actual permutations arising from this debate. Trans people are much more diverse than the term and debate often suggests; the interests of trans-identifying children and teenagers, especially trans boys, are very different to those of late-transitioning transwomen.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt

Last edited by Nick Terry; 30th October 2022 at 12:03 PM.
Nick Terry 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 30th October 2022, 12:29 PM   #1175
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 63,039
Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
The problem with self-ID is that it makes it impossible to define transwomen as a group in such a way as to exclude other men who wish to exploit the new loophole.
This is the crux of the matter. It also turns out to be the dangling thread that unravels the entire fabric of trans-rights activism, once you start pulling on 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 30th October 2022, 01:28 PM   #1176
Nick Terry
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,132
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I agree with these old traditions. I doubt the reasoning of traditional societies in support of this is really that similar to anything most people on the forum would buy in to. I do not think, for example, things being discriminatory is very high in the traditionalist list of reasons. Again, you are making the same argument that the trans-activists make. Both you and they base your arguments on discrimination. That then depends on what ever groups needs your ideology privileges over others. A gender critical feminist ideology will put women at the top, a trans-right ideology will put trans women at the top. Claiming it is "discriminatory" gets you nowhere since the claim always comes from within, and only makes sense from within, an ideology.
Not so; simple numbers mean the dispute should be weighted towards women, who form 51% of the typical population, and away from the claims of a very small minority of transwomen, who won't be a majority of trans people very soon, given the surge in girls identifying as transboys and transmen.

Quote:
Kind of, it moves it to a rights question between "women". Their ideology is much more sympathetic to the rights claims of trans-women than natural women. Gender critical feminism is of course far more sympathetic to rights claims from females than from males. Throw a different ideology in there, and you'll get a whole different set of claims about who is being discriminated against. There is no neutral, rational way of deciding this within the frame of the discussion. You just have both groups making functionally the same claims to being discriminated against, and the one we back depends on our ideology.
It won't do to reduce this to gender critical feminism vs trans activism, I'm afraid. Western societies are ideologically and religiously pluralistic, so it's not just the TERFs who are relevant here. Gender critical feminists might have sounded the alarm earliest, but that has long changed. Mumsnetters in the UK have acute awareness of how their womanhood and experiences as mothers play out in society but don't necessarily identify themselves as feminists.

Reducing how we might judge the dispute to 'our ideology' is also a cop-out. Multiple ideologies, including different religions, will have views on these matters.

Quote:
I didn't say you couldn't find out whose position has more political support, or indeed more popular support. That is easy. I thought people were claiming that one or other rights claim was correct, and the other was wrong. Sure, one of them will win politically... that may or may not be the one that has the most public support. Typically if the academy and the media disagree with the public, the public will be overruled and persuaded towards the right opinions. This is the way social progress has been achieved.
The academy and the media are actually split on gender identity. The academy is decidedly left/liberal leaning so the split is more significant there, while the media is more politically polarised, but both left and right are finding common cause over the questions raised by gender identity ideology.

Trans activist behaviour has been responsible for 'peaking' a very large number of people who might otherwise have been allies and sympathisers; the tendencies to enforcing an expansive interpretation of existing equality law (in the UK) and litany of abuse, death threats, efforts to get people sacked for even asking questions or booted off Twitter, the apparent refusal to listen to those with concerns: tactically, the 'no debate' strategy is likely backfiring. Opposition to gender identity ideology has grown because of the conduct of its advocates, over and above any intellectual disagreements.

The striking thing is those who are opposed to gender identity ideology are not then criticising other liberal, progressive or 'woke' causes. The right would like to bundle them all together, and some might fantasise about reversing the now widespread social acceptance of gay marriage (as well as homosexuality in general), but this isn't happening.

One reason is arguably that trans identity is extremely artificial, both literally in terms of transgender people not actually passing or being able to change their actual sex, as well as because the identities arise in large part because of psychological disturbances. Destigmatising mental illness is part of the progressive package, but other psychological disorders are not being normalised.

Quote:
Sure, I know this. They haven't held any previous social lines in the sand, so I have no confidence that they will hold this one, or are even particularly serious about holding it. Talk is cheap. In any case, this is just talking about what is popular, not who is right. If you are telling me that who is right isn't how it will be decided, then I am with you there.
Unless one buys into the 'no debate' declare-victory line, then since there are clashes of rights, who is right will in part be decided by experience, and only time will tell exactly how that unfolds.

Western societies contain substantial minorities, overwhelmingly of men, who identify as 'minor attracted persons', who are therefore considered paedophiles. Paedophile rights were pushed very heavily in the 1970s within and piggybacking alongside the emerging gay rights movement, but there was a dramatic break during the 1980s between lesbian and gay activism and culture and paedophiles, while paedophilia was policed vigorously into the 1990s, and beyond. There are therefore examples of causes that were once seen as progressive which stopped being seen as such, the political and social costs of endorsing them were simply too high.

MAPs/paedophiles are still with us, and some are infiltrating trans activism, or encouraging certain forms of trans identities, for their own reasons. The Mermaids scandal here in the UK is an illustration of this. The lesson of the 1970s is that activists for one cause cannot allow their cause to be infiltrated - the equation between gays and paedophiles was widespread and arguably slowed social acceptance.

The overlap might be much less this time around, and history doesn't repeat itself perfectly, but you'll have surely noticed how public disquiet over transgender identities seems greatest around 'trans kids'.

The sheer novelty of widespread trans identification among children and teenagers means that this is not guaranteed to last, all by itself: some of this is irrefutably a social contagion and trend. Moreover, the caution now being adopted by various countries towards medical transition will inevitably change the parameters through the rest of this decade and beyond. Societies are unlikely to tolerate or encourage entire generations seeking drugs and surgery based on their feelings as teenagers in ever larger numbers. The trans generation of the past decade will grow older and be visible exhibits of whether medical transition is a good or a bad thing. Yes, medicine might also advance to introduce better drugs, cope with the side effects, or carry out more effective surgery, but that would create intergenerational resentments as well as cautionary tales.

Societies may also decide after a while that affirming autogynephilia among late-transitioning men who become transwomen is dubious. AGP is a fetish, and it is not identical with a desire to fully transition. Those who identified as transvestites now identify more frequently as transwomen (this very much includes Eddie Izzard and his girl mode/boy mode arguments of late). AGP and related addictions is also encouraged by a culture and business model that are anything other than progressive: the porn industry, which caters to every kink, fetish and quirk imaginable, including 'sissy porn' and other WTF genres. Quite a few feminists have pointed out the irony of ostensible left-wingers giving a pass to an immensely destructive branch of capitalism.

There may be future changes in social attitudes towards sexual violence especially violence against women and girls, and accompanying patterns of men's behaviour, which by extension affect men who wish to identify as transwomen. Some of those could be trans-inclusive, some not. Dick pics, revenge porn, pressures to participate in pornified sex - eventually something might give. Or it might not, and maybe trans activism really does turn out to reinforce men's rights activism and misogyny, as some gender critical feminists suggest. Or acceptance of gender nonconformity is so widespread among teenagers that teenage heterosexual boys stop sending dick pics and stop forcing their girlfriends/hook-ups to contort themselves like pornstars.

Changing attitudes can already be seen in parallel cases. I noted how in the past 10-15 years, ordinary ******* men started resorting to the 'sex games gone wrong' defense when BDSM started becoming more mainstream or widely known about, to cover up or diminish their responsibility for strangling women. Few seem to have been practicing BDSM Dominants.

Awareness of femicide, coercive control and outrage at the shockingly low prosecution of rape is much more widespread, but few concrete results have emerged so far - that may or may not change.

The problem for trans activism and gender identity ideology is, male violence against women and girls and everyday sexism continue; so it's probably no accident that some women have become more outraged over self-ID and 'transwomen are women' in the exact same era between MeToo and the murder of Sarah Everard in the UK.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt

Last edited by Nick Terry; 30th October 2022 at 01:30 PM.
Nick Terry 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 30th October 2022, 02:06 PM   #1177
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,094
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This is the crux of the matter. It also turns out to be the dangling thread that unravels the entire fabric of trans-rights activism, once you start pulling on it.
I disagree. I don't think it is that easy to deny rights claims based on other people taking advantage of them. If these unintended consequences, implementation difficulties arguments worked, I think conservatives and traditionalists would be doing a lot better. I think progressivisms success is partly based on the assumption that one can just implement what is right, and any difficulties can be worked out. You asking people to say "no" to a bunch of poor suffering trans people today to save an as yet unknown woman having an unpleasant experience in a changing room at some undetermined point in the future that may perhaps be prevented by taking other steps. Emotionally, the trans-person wins this.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2022, 02:07 PM   #1178
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32,975
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Another point came up this morning as regards downsides of transitioning. A study in Canada showed that only 12% of people would consider dating a trans individual (hypothetically). Lesbians tended to be willing to date transmen, but practically nobody wanted to date a transwoman.
That's a beautiful example of a statistics and damned lies.

I will categorically state that there are significant numbers of men who would date a trans woman, but will never be seen with one, due to the inevitability of the fallout they'd have to deal with.

I'm big enough and comfortable enough in my own skin that I was well prepared for the blowback on being seen with a trans date, and I wasn't wrong to expect it. I found it funny, my trans gf found it embarrassing, and that other guys don't want to put themselves through that experience isn't the fault of the trans women, or the guys attracted to them.

This is the biggest trouble with the absurdly pro-trans/anti-JK Rowling set. Instead of fighting for acceptance as they are, they've gone so far over the line they're harming their real need.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Loving the fact that you cannot (or will not?) see that transgender animus is in fact the "natural" right-wing reactionary point of view.


Mate, I've never seen a more obvious waving of a white flag. I mean, clutching at straws is fair when you're out of ideas, but trying to label opponents here as Daily Fail-reading right wingers isn't even laughable, it's just pathetic.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2022, 02:10 PM   #1179
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32,975
Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
...lots of sensible text...
I've highlighted a few people in this thread who write beautifully and coherently on the subject - it's what keeps this thread amazing and a testament to what thinking people can produce.

Absolutely superior posts - every word you write is spot on.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2022, 02:40 PM   #1180
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 10,205
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
It's only cognitive dissonance if you believe that the other side can never have anything good or correct to say on any issue.
I wonder if there is a term for the unholy offspring of myside bias and political polarization.

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry View Post
I always thought that an individual could logically come to their own conclusions on certain matters by a consideration of the facts and their impact on society, but apparently I need to side with a "tribe" and pledge loyalty.
In the past, I've gravitated to skeptic or freethought discussion boards b/c people there seemed somewhat less likely to indulge in our irrational instinct to judge ideas by who has them and whom they run with, rather than judging ideas in and of themselves.

(Ah well.)
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 30th October 2022 at 03:02 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2022, 02:49 PM   #1181
Elaedith
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
So I think you're saying that my three types from post #1018,

exist. If that's correct, do we have any sense of the proportion of those three types?
From what I understand that is generally accurate. However, some sexologists argue that AGP is more like a sexual orientation than a fetish. However, it only occurs in men attracted to women, so it would be a sub-type of male heterosexuality. I don't recall relative proportions of the types - it's likely to keep changing anyway.

There is of course another type of 'trans' today, and that is people (mainly adolescents) who probably don't have gender dysphoria or a fetish, but identify as trans because they are gender non-conforming or reject sex stereotypes, and the prevailing ideology redefines 'not identifying as the gender assigned to you' as being trans. Although activists often deny that gender non-conformity is being redefined as trans, if GD is not needed to be trans, or if GD is just attributed to 'minority stress', then logically the only difference between a gender-non-conforming who identifies as trans and one who does not is their philosophical or ideological interpretation of what gender non-conformity means.
__________________
"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 30th October 2022, 02:54 PM   #1182
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 63,039
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I wonder if there is a term for the unholy offspring of myside bias and political polarization.
If there is, we've probably got Chaucer, Shakespeare, or Johnson to thank for 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 30th October 2022, 02:58 PM   #1183
Nick Terry
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,132
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
There is of course another type of 'trans' today, and that is people (mainly adolescents) who probably don't have gender dysphoria or a fetish, but identify as trans because they are gender non-conforming or reject sex stereotypes, and the prevailing ideology redefines 'not identifying as the gender assigned to you' as being trans. Although activists often deny that gender non-conformity is being redefined as trans, if GD is not needed to be trans, or if GD is just attributed to 'minority stress', then logically the only difference between a gender-non-conforming who identifies as trans and one who does not is their philosophical or ideological interpretation of what gender non-conformity means.
This.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry 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 30th October 2022, 03:03 PM   #1184
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 52,507
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I disagree. I don't think it is that easy to deny rights claims based on other people taking advantage of them. If these unintended consequences, implementation difficulties arguments worked, I think conservatives and traditionalists would be doing a lot better. I think progressivisms success is partly based on the assumption that one can just implement what is right, and any difficulties can be worked out. You asking people to say "no" to a bunch of poor suffering trans people today to save an as yet unknown woman having an unpleasant experience in a changing room at some undetermined point in the future that may perhaps be prevented by taking other steps. Emotionally, the trans-person wins this.
Do you only read your own posts? Nick Terry has shown in several posts that opposition to transwomen access to women’s spaces and sports is not restricted to conservatives and traditionalists and that progressives can remain progressive and still be uncomfortable with self-id. Your seeming insistence on putting all opponents of TRA into the conservative box is telling.

Also Rolfe and Emily’s Cat for two have documented many cases where women have not merely had an unpleasant experience but have been attacked and assaulted (and worse) in women’s spaces, including women’s jails. Stop these inaccurate and misleading posts please.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

Last edited by lionking; 30th October 2022 at 03:05 PM.
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 30th October 2022, 03:10 PM   #1185
p0lka
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: near trees, houses and a lake.
Posts: 3,024
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I wonder if there is a term for the unholy offspring of myside bias and political polarization.
offtopic: That link is hard to read due to eu/uk cookie rules, I had to turn off javascript to even see it.
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 30th October 2022, 03:16 PM   #1186
p0lka
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: near trees, houses and a lake.
Posts: 3,024
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
From what I understand that is generally accurate. However, some sexologists argue that AGP is more like a sexual orientation than a fetish. However, it only occurs in men attracted to women, so it would be a sub-type of male heterosexuality. I don't recall relative proportions of the types - it's likely to keep changing anyway.

There is of course another type of 'trans' today, and that is people (mainly adolescents) who probably don't have gender dysphoria or a fetish, but identify as trans because they are gender non-conforming or reject sex stereotypes, and the prevailing ideology redefines 'not identifying as the gender assigned to you' as being trans. Although activists often deny that gender non-conformity is being redefined as trans, if GD is not needed to be trans, or if GD is just attributed to 'minority stress', then logically the only difference between a gender-non-conforming who identifies as trans and one who does not is their philosophical or ideological interpretation of what gender non-conformity means.
I still don't understand how people who wish or need to conform to a gender, can be classed as gender-non-conforming?
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 30th October 2022, 03:21 PM   #1187
Nick Terry
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,132
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
I still don't understand how people who wish or need to conform to a gender, can be classed as gender-non-conforming?
Eddie Izzard in the 1990s: 'they're not women's clothes, they're my clothes' = gender non-conforming.
Eddie Izzard in the 2020s: wants to conform to gender stereotypes of women when in 'girl mode'.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry 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 30th October 2022, 03:33 PM   #1188
Nick Terry
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,132
Column from The Times by Janice Turner, about Eddie Izzard and other recent news stories
https://archive.ph/FJZuP#selection-987.0-990.0

Quote:
Unlike TV presenter Lorraine Kelly I won’t squeal “You go, girl!” at a 60-year-old man, as I don’t believe he’s a woman — but then I don’t think Eddie does either.

Because in his Guardian interview, Izzard said he was “not sure” trans women should take places on all-women shortlists and wouldn’t himself. That alone contradicts both the “trans women are women” mantra and Labour Party policy, thus making him as evil as Labour MP Rosie Duffield and JK Rowling.
I'd expect that Izzard would have attracted some criticism for wanting to enter politics regardless of his current identity, just because he is a celebrity of sorts, but there are enough examples of artists, actors and others who entered politics and overcame whatever celebrity they previously had *by actually talking about politics*. Glenda Jackson springs to mind as an example. Maybe if Izzard is heard talking about everyday politics, people will stop caring about his outfits, shoes and makeup.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry 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 30th October 2022, 03:43 PM   #1189
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 63,039
If a trans identifying person stops talking about outfits, shoes, and makeup, are they really trans?
__________________
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 30th October 2022, 03:56 PM   #1190
Nick Terry
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,132
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If a trans identifying person stops talking about outfits, shoes, and makeup, are they really trans?
Plenty of trans people have stopped talking about such things and got on with their lives. Jan Morris springs to mind - an autobiography and some essays vs a lot of conventional writing. After an initial buzz of interest, Morris was 'just' an author.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry 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 30th October 2022, 04:25 PM   #1191
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,094
Damn, lost my first reply to this...

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
Not so; simple numbers mean the dispute should be weighted towards women, who form 51% of the typical population, and away from the claims of a very small minority of transwomen, who won't be a majority of trans people very soon, given the surge in girls identifying as transboys and transmen.
51% does not matter. The majority of the country are white, but that doesn't mean that social justice will prioritise the interests of white people. Typically rights claims are not based on utilitarian calculus. They are inalianable claims that supposedly apply even if they apply to a single individual standing against a million. Either they are women and have a right to be treated as such, or they aren't. How many of them there are does not invalidate the rights claim. Think of the other places this 51% argument would go if it were granted...

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
It won't do to reduce this to gender critical feminism vs trans activism, I'm afraid. Western societies are ideologically and religiously pluralistic, so it's not just the TERFs who are relevant here. Gender critical feminists might have sounded the alarm earliest, but that has long changed. Mumsnetters in the UK have acute awareness of how their womanhood and experiences as mothers play out in society but don't necessarily identify themselves as feminists.
I wasn't intending to give an exaustive list. In any case, gender critical feminism is an ideological position, I imagine quite a bit of Mumsnet would agree with it. But again, ultimately their opinions don't matter very much.

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
Reducing how we might judge the dispute to 'our ideology' is also a cop-out. Multiple ideologies, including different religions, will have views on these matters.
Sure, multiple ideologies exist, but what do they reduce down to on this question. Many branches of Christianity have absorbed considerable amounts of progressive liberalism. From what I can see, you have to basic ideological positions. 1. Man is by nature good and should be freed from natural and social constraint where ever possible. 2. Man is by nature not good and freed from natural and social constraint will go wrong. The first postition is in favour of trans rights and effectively believes any implementation difficulties will sort themselves out in some way, and the second position sees all sorts of social problems coming from this. Is there another funamental position here? Neither position seems to depend on data.

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
The academy and the media are actually split on gender identity. The academy is decidedly left/liberal leaning so the split is more significant there, while the media is more politically polarised, but both left and right are finding common cause over the questions raised by gender identity ideology.
No, they are not split. The soft science has been teaching social constructivism, Critical X Studies and X Studies for 50 years. You might get some disagreement in medicine about whether giving hormone blockers to 12 years olds is a good idea, but that's hardly the academy being fundamentally divided on the core question. The faculty of medicine isn't the one who will influence the question of bathrooms. As to the media, again... the media read by the decision makers, the politicians, the educators, the producers of culture, is not significantly divided. How many people in Washington or Whitehall consume media that pushes the TERF position? Those are the people and media that matter. The social science departments of the academy are a progressive liberal monoculture.

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
Trans activist behaviour has been responsible for 'peaking' a very large number of people who might otherwise have been allies and sympathisers; the tendencies to enforcing an expansive interpretation of existing equality law (in the UK) and litany of abuse, death threats, efforts to get people sacked for even asking questions or booted off Twitter, the apparent refusal to listen to those with concerns: tactically, the 'no debate' strategy is likely backfiring. Opposition to gender identity ideology has grown because of the conduct of its advocates, over and above any intellectual disagreements.
Maybe, we will see... all the while they are educating the next generation. Any victory that might be won is decidedly temporary so long as that is going on. My daughter is 12 and has multiple trans and non-binary friends. I see her carefully stepping through the pronouns. Sure, many of them will grow out of it, but she has been taught the trans-activist theory of sex and gender as fact.

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
The striking thing is those who are opposed to gender identity ideology are not then criticising other liberal, progressive or 'woke' causes. The right would like to bundle them all together, and some might fantasise about reversing the now widespread social acceptance of gay marriage (as well as homosexuality in general), but this isn't happening.
Sure, but the basic ideological positions are the same in both cases. A bunch of feminists switched to making the conservative case once progressive deconstruction reached the things that they cared about. Maybe trans-activism can be turned back without questioning the ideology that gave it to us, and all the other things that that ideology has given to us, and maybe it can't. We will see.

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
One reason is arguably that trans identity is extremely artificial, both literally in terms of transgender people not actually passing or being able to change their actual sex, as well as because the identities arise in large part because of psychological disturbances. Destigmatising mental illness is part of the progressive package, but other psychological disorders are not being normalised.
Maybe they just haven't been gotten to yet? One can't do every single liberation struggle at the same time. In any case, the trans thing is really just a natural extension of the effort to deconstruct gender that has been going on since at least the 1940s. First you deconstruct what it means to be a woman, then you deconstruct who can be a woman. Then everybody is free because the word that bound us no longer has any meaning. I can claim to be a woman despite having a penis and I can express that by dressing like a 1960s playboy model, you can claim to be a woman while having a vagina and express that by shaving your head, getting tattoos and presenting like a member of a white supremacist prison gang. Liberation is turning "woman" into a commodified choice that we can consume.

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
Unless one buys into the 'no debate' declare-victory line, then since there are clashes of rights, who is right will in part be decided by experience, and only time will tell exactly how that unfolds.
No it won't. It will be decided by who has political power. One group will be able to leverage their grievance better than the other and will win. These things are almost never decided by how they turn out in some scientific experiment sense. Which was the last liberation movement that government backed to the extent that trans-rights has been backed, and then government decided it was a horrible idea and rolled back?

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
Western societies contain substantial minorities, overwhelmingly of men, who identify as 'minor attracted persons', who are therefore considered paedophiles. Paedophile rights were pushed very heavily in the 1970s within and piggybacking alongside the emerging gay rights movement, but there was a dramatic break during the 1980s between lesbian and gay activism and culture and paedophiles, while paedophilia was policed vigorously into the 1990s, and beyond. There are therefore examples of causes that were once seen as progressive which stopped being seen as such, the political and social costs of endorsing them were simply too high.

MAPs/paedophiles are still with us, and some are infiltrating trans activism, or encouraging certain forms of trans identities, for their own reasons. The Mermaids scandal here in the UK is an illustration of this. The lesson of the 1970s is that activists for one cause cannot allow their cause to be infiltrated - the equation between gays and paedophiles was widespread and arguably slowed social acceptance.

The overlap might be much less this time around, and history doesn't repeat itself perfectly, but you'll have surely noticed how public disquiet over transgender identities seems greatest around 'trans kids'.
Sure, and I was thinking of that. That isn't really a discussion that can be had.

[quote=Nick Terry;13934390]The sheer novelty of widespread trans identification among children and teenagers means that this is not guaranteed to last, all by itself: some of this is irrefutably a social contagion and trend. Moreover, the caution now being adopted by various countries towards medical transition will inevitably change the parameters through the rest of this decade and beyond. Societies are unlikely to tolerate or encourage entire generations seeking drugs and surgery based on their feelings as teenagers in ever larger numbers. The trans generation of the past decade will grow older and be visible exhibits of whether medical transition is a good or a bad thing. Yes, medicine might also advance to introduce better drugs, cope with the side effects, or carry out more effective surgery, but that would create intergenerational resentments as well as cautionary tales.[/QUOET]
We shall see. If it falls, it will be interesting to see if it causes any change in ideology, of if the social science departments carry on and wait for their control of education to win the day.

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
Societies may also decide after a while that affirming autogynephilia among late-transitioning men who become transwomen is dubious. AGP is a fetish, and it is not identical with a desire to fully transition. Those who identified as transvestites now identify more frequently as transwomen (this very much includes Eddie Izzard and his girl mode/boy mode arguments of late). AGP and related addictions is also encouraged by a culture and business model that are anything other than progressive: the porn industry, which caters to every kink, fetish and quirk imaginable, including 'sissy porn' and other WTF genres. Quite a few feminists have pointed out the irony of ostensible left-wingers giving a pass to an immensely destructive branch of capitalism.
When you liberate people from physical and social constraint as progressivism does, why wouldn't they fall in to porn and so forth? You then have sex positive progressives saying porn is empowering. The traditionalist argument for 300 years is that this is exactly what progressivism leads to. Just because it doesn't produce results you like doesn't make it not progressive, otherwise we are in no true scotsman territory.

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
here may be future changes in social attitudes towards sexual violence especially violence against women and girls, and accompanying patterns of men's behaviour, which by extension affect men who wish to identify as transwomen. Some of those could be trans-inclusive, some not. Dick pics, revenge porn, pressures to participate in pornified sex - eventually something might give. Or it might not, and maybe trans activism really does turn out to reinforce men's rights activism and misogyny, as some gender critical feminists suggest. Or acceptance of gender nonconformity is so widespread among teenagers that teenage heterosexual boys stop sending dick pics and stop forcing their girlfriends/hook-ups to contort themselves like pornstars.

Changing attitudes can already be seen in parallel cases. I noted how in the past 10-15 years, ordinary ******* men started resorting to the 'sex games gone wrong' defense when BDSM started becoming more mainstream or widely known about, to cover up or diminish their responsibility for strangling women. Few seem to have been practicing BDSM Dominants.
Sure, but thanks to progressivism, such things are no longer limited to BDSM communities and they are a much more normalised part of culture. Traditionalists tried to hold back the normalisation of pornography, but they were laughed out of town. We are now living in a world were 50 shades of grey is a publishing hit and WAP is on the radio. It is not obscure BDSM fetishists who are buying this stuff.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2022, 04:35 PM   #1192
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,094
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If a trans identifying person stops talking about outfits, shoes, and makeup, are they really trans?
You know how you have "racially black" and "politically black", with black conservatives not being politically black. I should think such a trans person would be trans, but not politically trans. Only the opinions of politically X people count when you are representing their interests for social justice purposes.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2022, 04:37 PM   #1193
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,094
Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
I'd expect that Izzard would have attracted some criticism for wanting to enter politics regardless of his current identity, just because he is a celebrity of sorts, but there are enough examples of artists, actors and others who entered politics and overcame whatever celebrity they previously had *by actually talking about politics*. Glenda Jackson springs to mind as an example. Maybe if Izzard is heard talking about everyday politics, people will stop caring about his outfits, shoes and makeup.
He did sterling work to make Brexit happen when he advocated for Remain. If anybody can sink Labour, it's him.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2022, 04:42 PM   #1194
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,094
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Do you only read your own posts? Nick Terry has shown in several posts that opposition to transwomen access to women’s spaces and sports is not restricted to conservatives and traditionalists and that progressives can remain progressive and still be uncomfortable with self-id. Your seeming insistence on putting all opponents of TRA into the conservative box is telling.
The arguments I see them making tend to be philosophically conservative arguments. After all, they are attempting to resist a social change granting rights to a group claiming to be marginalised, so it isn't surprising. They themselves may well be progressives, but I don't care so much about that.

Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Also Rolfe and Emily’s Cat for two have documented many cases where women have not merely had an unpleasant experience but have been attacked and assaulted (and worse) in women’s spaces, including women’s jails. Stop these inaccurate and misleading posts please.
I was speaking euphemistically. One side claims there are assaults, the other side claims unbearable psychological pain and attempted suicide. I don't intend to understate either, and I don't propose to quantify or compare them since I am doubtful we can.

Last edited by shuttlt; 30th October 2022 at 04:53 PM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2022, 05:14 PM   #1195
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,929
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Mate, I've never seen a more obvious waving of a white flag. I mean, clutching at straws is fair when you're out of ideas, but trying to label opponents here as Daily Fail-reading right wingers isn't even laughable, it's just pathetic.

You missed the entire point* of my post. Mate.



* The point being an exposition of the irony behind someone who identifies as vehemently and viscerally in opposition to right-wing philosophy (and who therefore could reasonably be considered to hold views associated with either a) an anarchist, b) a totally apolitical person, or c) most likely, the progressive left wing).... choosing nevertheless to identify with one strand of right-wing philosophy (animus towards transgender people and the very concept of transgender identity) and rejecting the progressive left-wing recognition of transgender rights and protections. Went well over your head though, clearly. Mate.
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 30th October 2022, 05:21 PM   #1196
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,929
Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
Eddie Izzard in the 1990s: 'they're not women's clothes, they're my clothes' = gender non-conforming.
Eddie Izzard in the 2020s: wants to conform to gender stereotypes of women when in 'girl mode'.

And do you accept the validity of Izzard's gender identity? Or do you deny the validity of her gender identity and think that she's suffering from some form of mental deficiency?


(No need to answer by the way: the only opinion on this question that's worth paying attention to is the opinion of the World's experts in the relevant medical/scientific fields. And those expert groups conclude clearly that Izzard's gender identity is valid. The opinion of all the inexpert denialists in this toxic bin-fire of a thread is both irrelevant and of zero importance.)
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 30th October 2022, 05:52 PM   #1197
Nick Terry
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,132
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
And do you accept the validity of Izzard's gender identity? Or do you deny the validity of her gender identity and think that she's suffering from some form of mental deficiency?

(No need to answer by the way: the only opinion on this question that's worth paying attention to is the opinion of the World's experts in the relevant medical/scientific fields. And those expert groups conclude clearly that Izzard's gender identity is valid. The opinion of all the inexpert denialists in this toxic bin-fire of a thread is both irrelevant and of zero importance.)
I don't actually know what Izzard's gender identity is because it keeps changing. If he wants to be gender non-conforming and genderfluid, that's fine with me. It's the flitting back and forth between 'girl mode' and 'boy mode' when kicking off high heels that is not, I'm afraid to say, a stable gender identity, nor does having a 'girl mode' and 'boy mode' sequentially make someone a woman.

Medical experts' opinions are irrelevant here, since Izzard isn't to anyone's knowledge seeking treatment for gender dysphoria, or cosmetic/hormonal changes to the body to become more feminine.

It's all in the heels, dresses and lipstick, and that was the case thirty years ago when Izzard first became famous as a comedian and transvestite. 'They're not women's clothes, they're my clothes' - brilliant line, cheered on by countless TERFs who don't think Izzard is now a woman. But as the Times article rightly noted, I don't think Izzard knows what he actually is.

And that's fine. I've said repeatedly I welcome greater gender nonconformity and gender fluidity. I don't think anyone should be obliged to refer to Izzard as a woman when Izzard switches between 'girl mode' and 'boy mode', nor should they even if Izzard stayed put in 'girl mode', nor should anyone be criminalised for referring to Eddie Izzard as a man. A gender non-conforming man, yes, but still a man. He's been a man for too long for anything else to wash, frankly.

Where, exactly, have I dissented from the great validation to which you constantly refer without further explanation? What have I actually denied in any of the above?
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry 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 30th October 2022, 06:10 PM   #1198
Nick Terry
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,132
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
You missed the entire point* of my post. Mate.

The point being an exposition of the irony behind someone who identifies as vehemently and viscerally in opposition to right-wing philosophy (and who therefore could reasonably be considered to hold views associated with either a) an anarchist, b) a totally apolitical person, or c) most likely, the progressive left wing).... choosing nevertheless to identify with one strand of right-wing philosophy (animus towards transgender people and the very concept of transgender identity) and rejecting the progressive left-wing recognition of transgender rights and protections. Went well over your head though, clearly. Mate.
I've stated repeatedly that I recognise transgender rights and protections as set out in the Equality Act of 2010 in the UK, as one of many protected characteristics recognised under that law.

I've asked several times what 'transgender rights and protections' are over and above this baseline - the one that is actually enshrined in law and in common-sense everyday decency. But you never answer.

If 'transgender rights' involve replacing sex with gender, erasing women as a term, and policing speech to a ridiculous degree then I guess I reject those.

Let's be clear: there are actively insulting terms for trans people which are as unacceptable as the insulting terms for women, gay men, lesbians and ethnic minorities. I don't think any of them should be used, ever, and if they are used, this would contribute to a discrimination or harassment case, or ought to. The law on hate crimes indicates that if someone used such slurs *while also committing another crime*, this is an aggravated offence. (But on an everyday level, on the street as it were, using slurs isn't a crime in and of itself, contrary to what some might believe. Disgusting and reprehensible, but not actually prosecutable.)

So what further protections do trans people need that I'm missing here? I'm willing to be educated about this issue, since clearly I must have been listening to those dangerous socialist feminists too much, and somehow missed the progressive point along the way, despite thirty years of reading the Guardian.

Please, explain.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt

Last edited by Nick Terry; 30th October 2022 at 06:19 PM.
Nick Terry 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 30th October 2022, 06:11 PM   #1199
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,292
Izzard goes into women's toilets, freaks out a couple of 13 year old girls, and somehow manages to play the victim card on that basis.

He can wear what he likes and call himself what he likes, but he needs to keep his decidedly male body out of female intimate spaces.
__________________
"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 30th October 2022, 06:18 PM   #1200
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,292
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
(No need to answer by the way: the only opinion on this question that's worth paying attention to is the opinion of the World's experts in the relevant medical/scientific fields. And those expert groups conclude clearly that Izzard's gender identity is valid. The opinion of all the inexpert denialists in this toxic bin-fire of a thread is both irrelevant and of zero importance.)

At this stage, I can only conclude that this is a brilliant exercise in performance art.
__________________
"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
Reply

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

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 03:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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.