IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags transgender incidents , transgender issues , transgender rights

Closed Thread
Old 18th December 2020, 03:22 PM   #3801
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,967
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Why would you blithely assume female athletes generally take this view, given that they have access to the record books?
Can't make everyone happy. I'm just going to nod and agree at who ever screams the loudest and calls me the worst insult.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 03:46 PM   #3802
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,875
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I don't see sports as the game breaker (no pun) that others do.

We already have skill based sports demarcation. (AA, AAA, Pro or Varsity/JV or whatever).

Sports can just become skill based with gender ignored.

Hell you could probably gender neutral (yeah I'm using neutral as a verb, sue me) boxing just with weight classes and maintain a pretty fair level of both fairness and competition.

Tyson Fury is 6 foot 9 and about ~255 lbs. Most women shouldn't fight him just because there aren't "most women" that are that big.
Nope, Iíve looked hard and donít see a smilie in this post. So you must be serious. And hopelessly wrong.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 04:03 PM   #3803
Louden Wilde
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: NYC
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I find this brief letter in Scientific American says it better than I ever could.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...y-transphobia/

The whole thing is pretty short and worth a read, but the concluding paragraph is below for brevity:

The "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd is doing a lot more non-scientific judgement than they like to let on.
That opinion piece (not a peer-reviewed article) conflates secondary characteristics with primary sex. Pretty much every developmental pathway is complicated. But mutations in the Hox genes that result in missing limbs or alternate numbers of digits don't lead us to say that humans have a variable number of digits or limbs.

The article seems to intentionally conflate sexual identity/sexuality with primary sex. This sentence is particularly bad: the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real.
Note that no other sexes are named/characterized, and a false equivalency is being made (i.e. noting that sex is binary does not mean that transgender people 'are not real' (just that they're not actually changing sex).

It's an incredibly myopic point of view.

Again, to be clear: sex is a reproductive method many millions of years old. There is much evidence that it exists due to its ability to form novel genetic combinations. In mammals sex is an obligate binary (though we've long suspected this, the nuclear transplantation experiments of the 80s solidified this, e.g.
That is, there can be only the two gamete types and those bodies that produce them.


It's clear that sex/development in other mammals (and far beyond) is homologous to what occurs in humans, so any argument you make for what happens with us needs to extend other mammals at least, or it's special pleading. Sexual behavior, identity, etc. are different than sex itself.

Last edited by Louden Wilde; 18th December 2020 at 04:12 PM. Reason: typos, clarity
Louden Wilde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 04:33 PM   #3804
Dismember
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 291
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Not sure why the obvious analogy to the Satanic Panic isn't being made here. The same types of people who made baseless accusations of child sexual abuse by deviants [...]
That's not at all the obvious analogy, from my perspective.

The SRA/Multiple Personality narrative had support from many sides but like the trans "gender identity" narrative, it was enthusiastically promoted by therapists, mental health "experts" and organizations, celebrity talk show hosts and public figures who bought right into the ludicrous SRA claims in Michelle Remembers (co-written by Dr. Lawrence Pazder, psychiatrist, and his patient Michelle Smith whom he ended up marrying) and subsequent claims from various therapists and clinicians.

The general populace really can't be blamed too much for believing that nonsense when so many people with clout and authority were saying it was true.

Also like the Satanic Panic, I predict in 5 to 10 years, we'll be seeing a lot more Keira Bells filing lawsuits against therapists and clinics who are WAY too quick to prescribe drugs (drugs which the UK court found to be "experimental", since long-term effects and outcomes are unknown and Tavistock was NOT doing any long term follow up) to young teens and sometimes children even younger than that. If lawsuits start piling up and "detransitioners" start gaining more visibility, public perception will likely begin to shift. But (again) like the Satanic Panic, there will be a lot of very damaged people and families left dealing with the consequences.
__________________
"There are obviously those who don't want the truth exposed." -- Judy Byington, LCSW, author of Satanic Ritual Abuse "biography" Twenty-Two Faces
Dismember is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 04:59 PM   #3805
Louden Wilde
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: NYC
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I think your belief that transwomen don't face many of the same barriers as women is absurd.


In every way that matters, transwomen are much more like other women than they are like men.
Not in the original way that woman was defined - adult human female . To say that sex doesn't matter or has nothing to do with why females are oppressed defies logic & evidence. I'm also not convinced that transwomen crime rates are any different than other males.....
Louden Wilde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 05:07 PM   #3806
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,676
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I find this brief letter in Scientific American says it better than I ever could.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...y-transphobia/

The whole thing is pretty short and worth a read, but the concluding paragraph is below for brevity:



The "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd is doing a lot more non-scientific judgement than they like to let on.
Nutjob opinion pieces published by pop-science magazines do not constitute scientific sources.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 05:10 PM   #3807
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,676
Originally Posted by Louden Wilde View Post
That opinion piece (not a peer-reviewed article) conflates secondary characteristics with primary sex.
Yes, hence my earlier remark about having slept through one's statistics class, as that is the error of conflating an independent variable (sex) with dependent variables (secondary sex characteristics).
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 05:10 PM   #3808
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,827
One of the things that keeps coming up is the whole definition thing. We've been over it before, more than once, but we just keep coming around to it.

If we accept the modern jargon of cis/trans/male/female, we have a set of people that consists of the union of the sets of cisgender females plus transgender males. This is the set that was formerly known as "women", but times change. So what should we call them now? Boudicca90 apparently doesn't like "biological women". Maybe, "People with uteri"? (I suppose "uteri" is the plural of uterus. Uteruses doesn't sound great. Maybe "People that have a uterus", since each of them only has one uterus.) It sounds kind of awkward.

To my way of thinking, that whole set of people who can have babies, plus the people who used to be able to have babies, or are likely to be able to have babies in the future, or who have most of the same organs, and but for some other medical condition could have babies, seems like a useful set to have a more concise term for. What is that group of people supposed to be called?
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

Last edited by Meadmaker; 18th December 2020 at 05:13 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 05:52 PM   #3809
Dismember
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 291
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Leading experts in the field include Zucker (who chaired the DSM5 working group and is the world leading expert on gender dysphoria) and Cantor, who are both at loggerheads with trans activists. Both are critical of the gender identity lobby and of politicians who are passing legislation not based on science, and without consulting experts. That's why they are hated by activists and are the constant target of smear campaigns.
Apologies, I should have been clearer: I mistrust the experts and organizations who are uncritically accepting and promoting the pseudoscience of gender identity. (Reserving the right to amend that view, of course, but absent any compelling evidence I canít bring myself to see it as anything but pseudoscience)

Thank you, though, for highlighting something I missed: For all the talk in this thread about how the Gender Critical viewpoint is wrong, how doubters are a small minority and how leading experts and academic institutions overwhelmingly support gender identity, itís important to see that this view is *not* universally accepted and it IS disputed by credible experts and leaders in the field.
__________________
"There are obviously those who don't want the truth exposed." -- Judy Byington, LCSW, author of Satanic Ritual Abuse "biography" Twenty-Two Faces
Dismember is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 05:56 PM   #3810
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,080
Fascinating identitarian mission creep here, from pronouns to racial status:

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/st...38309246603264
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 06:08 PM   #3811
cullennz
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,697
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
One of the things that keeps coming up is the whole definition thing. We've been over it before, more than once, but we just keep coming around to it.

If we accept the modern jargon of cis/trans/male/female, we have a set of people that consists of the union of the sets of cisgender females plus transgender males. This is the set that was formerly known as "women", but times change. So what should we call them now? Boudicca90 apparently doesn't like "biological women". Maybe, "People with uteri"? (I suppose "uteri" is the plural of uterus. Uteruses doesn't sound great. Maybe "People that have a uterus", since each of them only has one uterus.) It sounds kind of awkward.

To my way of thinking, that whole set of people who can have babies, plus the people who used to be able to have babies, or are likely to be able to have babies in the future, or who have most of the same organs, and but for some other medical condition could have babies, seems like a useful set to have a more concise term for. What is that group of people supposed to be called?
I'm kind of beginning to lose interest after 4 humungous threads now, but why do you bother putting "cis" in your options when you have male and female?

Cis is and always will be redundant, to give other people the warm fuzzies.
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 06:24 PM   #3812
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,827
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
I'm kind of beginning to lose interest after 4 humungous threads now, but why do you bother putting "cis" in your options when you have male and female?

Cis is and always will be redundant, to give other people the warm fuzzies.
It isn't redundant, but yes it is used to give people warm fuzzies. I think specifically it is used to say that there are two different types of women, and two different types of men, and to put the two types on equal footing.


As for what I'm doing with my most recent post is that I'm really pointing out that classifying people by their means of reproduction is actually pretty useful. Bringing it up again, for the umpteenth time, is a reaction to Boudicca90's insistence that she is a biological woman, and just wondering if we can get an acknowledgement that there is a very significant difference between those who bear children, and people with bodies very similar to them, and those who sire children, and people with bodies very similar to them. There is a thing called "sex" in the biology books, and everyone pretty much agrees that transwomen are of the male sex, except Boudicca90 and some other trans-activists.

Well, fine, if one insists that sex is "really" a spectrum, and that people born with a uterus can actually be male, there is still a pretty significant thing about all those people who we used to call "women", but in our new, enlightened, society, are called something else. Nevertheless, the people still exist, and they share anatomical features, and I just wonder if the trans-activists think there's some benefit of lumping all of those people into a category that has a name.

Putting it differently, it is acknowledging that some of these debates are all about terms, so if you want "woman" to mean something different, that's all well and good. It would be nice if you could do the dictionary thing and use some other words to provide a new definition of "woman", but we've been down that road, too. However, there is, underneath those words, an actual reality that actually matters. Having a uterus is kind of worth mentioning, so much so that most languages use a shortened term to capture the idea. Will transactivists actually acknowledge that significance?

(Note: If anyone says that somehow the existence of hysterectomies somehow negates the above, it means either,
1) You don't understand what I mean, in which case you are stupid. or
2) You do understand what I mean, but you are going to say it anyway, in which case you are pretending to be stupid.)
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

Last edited by Meadmaker; 18th December 2020 at 06:31 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 06:46 PM   #3813
cullennz
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,697
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
It isn't redundant, but yes it is used to give people warm fuzzies. I think specifically it is used to say that there are two different types of women, and two different types of men, and to put the two types on equal footing.


As for what I'm doing with my most recent post is that I'm really pointing out that classifying people by their means of reproduction is actually pretty useful. Bringing it up again, for the umpteenth time, is a reaction to Boudicca90's insistence that she is a biological woman, and just wondering if we can get an acknowledgement that there is a very significant difference between those who bear children, and people with bodies very similar to them, and those who sire children, and people with bodies very similar to them. There is a thing called "sex" in the biology books, and everyone pretty much agrees that transwomen are of the male sex, except Boudicca90 and some other trans-activists.

Well, fine, if one insists that sex is "really" a spectrum, and that people born with a uterus can actually be male, there is still a pretty significant thing about all those people who we used to call "women", but in our new, enlightened, society, are called something else. Nevertheless, the people still exist, and they share anatomical features, and I just wonder if the trans-activists think there's some benefit of lumping all of those people into a category that has a name.

Putting it differently, it is acknowledging that some of these debates are all about terms, so if you want "woman" to mean something different, that's all well and good. It would be nice if you could do the dictionary thing and use some other words to provide a new definition of "woman", but we've been down that road, too. However, there is, underneath those words, an actual reality that actually matters. Having a uterus is kind of worth mentioning, so much so that most languages use a shortened term to capture the idea. Will transactivists actually acknowledge that significance?

(Note: If anyone says that somehow the existence of hysterectomies somehow negates the above, it means either,
1) You don't understand what I mean, in which case you are stupid. or
2) You do understand what I mean, but you are going to say it anyway, in which case you are pretending to be stupid.)
This is the bit that gets all flip flopped and confused when talking about this I think.

I thought (Maybe wrongly, as this "Identity" **** seems to morph every time I look at it again), that we had established the following.

Man/Male are different. One sex. The other nicked by Trans activists

Ditto Woman/Female

Gender
Man/Women/Trans other weird version who don't want either man or woman/What ever some people are going to claim is a spectrum or whatever I can't be bothered with.

Sex
Male/Female

Last edited by cullennz; 18th December 2020 at 06:48 PM.
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 07:14 PM   #3814
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,676
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
That is a misunderstanding of what the term spectrum implies in mathematical contexts.
Well, the term is used differently in different contexts, but what the gender identity ideologues appear to be meaning is as a function from a continuous interval between "male" and "female." Which, even if we accept this redefinition of sex in terms of various other characteristics, would be strictly speaking false since the set of possible genetic combinations in humans is finite. And even if we take a continuum limit, the actual function between "male" and "female" will depend on how you choose to combine those various other characteristics together into a single continuum between "male" and "female", so it's ill-defined anyway.

ETA: Then of course, "ill-defined" probably sums up their whole position in general.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 18th December 2020 at 07:16 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 07:15 PM   #3815
Dismember
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 291
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
To my way of thinking, that whole set of people who can have babies, plus the people who used to be able to have babies, or are likely to be able to have babies in the future, or who have most of the same organs, and but for some other medical condition could have babies, seems like a useful set to have a more concise term for. What is that group of people supposed to be called?
I'd like to cast a vote for either The Uterati or the Ovarati.

__________________
"There are obviously those who don't want the truth exposed." -- Judy Byington, LCSW, author of Satanic Ritual Abuse "biography" Twenty-Two Faces
Dismember is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2020, 11:43 PM   #3816
cullennz
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,697
Temporary landlordess
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th December 2020, 03:28 AM   #3817
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 46,399
This is interesting.

The document that reveals the remarkable tactics of trans lobbyists
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 19th December 2020, 10:01 AM   #3818
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,625
Dup

Last edited by theprestige; 19th December 2020 at 10:02 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th December 2020, 12:43 PM   #3819
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 96,130
Mod InfoContinuation thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=348529
Posted By:Darat
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.