ISF Logo   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

Reply
Old 15th September 2020, 08:39 PM   #81
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,461
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
1) Yes

2) No


What a strange contribution.
Why is it a strange contribution? We have just been talking about whether or not homosexuality is a genuine valid condition and that wasn't considered a strange contribution.

Why then is it strange to have the exact same discussion about heterosexuality?

Don't we need to hear from the experts in the field to find out if heterosexuality is a genuine valid condition?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 15th September 2020 at 08:43 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 08:48 PM   #82
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,461
Originally Posted by MisAndreG View Post
maybe someone who is smarter than I am can break this down for me. So the best and largest studies on trans treatment (hormone and surgery) Branstrom and Dhejne found that there was no benefit for ppl diagnosed with a “gender incongruence”. The treatments don’t reduce anxiety or depression and increase suicidality and all cause mortality. so what the hell are we doing to these ppl? My goodness we’re destroying ppl because of what? What reason?
I have been asking for decades what the point of gender reassignment surgery is, sometimes losing trans friends over the question.

Perhaps we should start to regard it as an outdated response.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 16th September 2020, 04:31 AM   #83
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Okay so once again here is the question:



Given that we all celebrated the holding of Bostock v. Clayton County can you have a go at the question as of today?
The decision narrowly applies to employment. There is no wider recognition that transgender identity is a protected class federally. It remains lawful in many states to discriminate against trans people in housing and other non-employment parts of society.

Several states have passed explicitly anti-trans laws requiring them to use bathrooms consistent with their biological sex, regardless of their transitioned gender identity.

Trans people are routinely the targets of hate crimes and only some states classify them as such.

Only some states have included gender identity as a protected class in their civil rights statutes.

It remains legal federally and in many states for parents to compel their children to attend conversion therapy, which is widely regarded as little more than psychological torture.

Trans people are largely considered "mentally unfit" for military service, a reversal of previous policy.

The few advances that trans people have made over the last few years are perceived to be in great danger of being eliminated by a new conservative SCOTUS, which is probably why anti-trans legal advocacy groups like the ADF deem it a good time to bring such litigation.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 16th September 2020 at 04:32 AM.
SuburbanTurkey 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 16th September 2020, 05:10 AM   #84
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,032
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
A few questions for everyone and anyone:

1) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by gender? If so, what and why? If not, why not?
I can't really think of anything, though if people loosely segregate social gatherings by gender, that might make sense in some circumstances.

Quote:
2) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by sex? If so, what and why? If not, why not?
Yes, I think so. Competitive sports are a pretty clear cut example of something I think should be segregated by sex, because of the biological advantages that men have over women.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 16th September 2020, 05:17 AM   #85
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,032
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Yes. My local big box stores have separate clothing depts. for feminine and masculine clothing, and this strikes me as convenient for nearly everyone. A separate area for clothing especially tailored for those pursuing unisex and/or non-binary fashions would be appreciated as well.
I may have misunderstood the question. I certainly think it makes sense to have separate men's/women's clothing, partly due to biological differences in body shapes, but also because of gendered differences in fashion tastes. But I don't think, for instance, that people who are predominantly masculine should be prohibited from buying female clothing. Some of my favorite clothes used to be tights I got from Victoria's Secret. I stopped wearing them because I put on some weight and they don't look so good anymore, also there are many more options in men's yoga clothing in the past few years. A lot of men asked me where I got them (or sometimes women looking to shop for their boyfriends), but they'd usually feel uncomfortable when I told them.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 16th September 2020, 05:31 AM   #86
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,754
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It remains lawful in many states to discriminate against trans people in housing and other non-employment parts of society.
Would you rather single-sex housing (e.g. dormitories at Catholic University) were prohibited by federal law?
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 16th September 2020 at 05:33 AM. Reason: edit URL
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 16th September 2020, 05:38 AM   #87
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Would you rather single-sex housing (e.g. dormitories at Catholic University) were prohibited by federal law?
I would rather landlords did not have the option to discriminate against trans renters. Complexities of religious colleges and single sex dorms aside, it's perfectly lawful for bigoted landlords to straight up prohibit trans renters from ordinary rental properties.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 16th September 2020 at 05:42 AM.
SuburbanTurkey 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 16th September 2020, 05:39 AM   #88
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,217
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post

We can observe the distress, and we can treat the distress. But we cannot objectively determine that the transgender person who feels like a woman actually does feel like a woman, or in fact shares any commonalities with a female that aren't otherwise shared by all humans.
Isn't the treatment for the distress basically to treat the person of the gender that they say they identify as?

I believe that you identify as a woman and I doubt that you would a) appreciate anyone telling you that they don't agree with you b) reduce that identity to the mere presence of genitalia?

I think this reductionism potentially does women in general a disservice because if we reduce 'women' to biology then we open the door for a lot of the efforts made to help women reduce inequalities to be dismantled unless they have a biological basis. Or worse, the invention of spurious biological justifications for inequalities.

I'm sure we agree the experience of being a women is more than the experience of having female genitals and, if we do, then surely that also allows for an experience of being a woman absent female genitals? It may not be the same lived experience as you but that doesn't mean it's invalid. After all I'm sure there are all sorts of women who have all sorts of different lived experiences from you. All that is being asked is that the range of 'lived experiences of being a woman' includes transwomen.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal 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 16th September 2020, 05:42 AM   #89
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,217
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Would you rather single-sex housing (e.g. dormitories at Catholic University) were prohibited by federal law?
These two issues appear unconnected but I don't think that separating men and women on such spurious, quasi-religious grounds is healthy. If it was the Islamic University doing it there would be uproar.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal 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 16th September 2020, 05:51 AM   #90
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,754
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I would rather landlords did not have the option to discriminate against trans renters.
Me too—in mixed sex structures such as apartment buildings—of course. That said, you seem to be deliberately dodging the hard problem here. Some institutions are deliberately segregating by sex in housing right now. Would your ideal legislation require that they give up the right to do so?
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 16th September 2020 at 05:55 AM.
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 16th September 2020, 06:03 AM   #91
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Me too—in mixed sex structures such as apartment buildings—of course. That said, you seem to be deliberately dodging the hard problem here. Some institutions are deliberately segregating by sex in housing right now. Would your ideal legislation require that they give up the right to do so?
Religious institutions are given wide latitude to conduct themselves in ways that would otherwise be considered discriminatory in other contexts. A discussion of religious privilege to violate equal protection laws seems like a derail from the topic thread.

I see no reason why this hyper-specific, very special case is really relevant to whatever point about how great trans people have it in the US is supposed you seem to be making.

Ordinary landlords renting out normal homes can discriminate against trans people in many states across the country. You asked what rights trans people don't have, there's one. I have no interest in quibbling about Catholic University communal dorms or whatever you're on about.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey 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 16th September 2020, 06:09 AM   #92
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,754
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
You asked what rights trans people don't have, there's one. I have no interest in quibbling about Catholic University communal dorms or whatever you're on about.
If you want to be taken seriously when proposing changes to the law of the land, it helps to show that you've thought through all the implications. And once again, here, you've dodged the question of whether it would be appropriate and desirable to ban single-sex living quarters outright.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2020, 06:10 AM   #93
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
If you want to be taken seriously when proposing changes to the law of the land, it helps to show that you've thought through all the implications. And once again, here, you've dodged the question of whether it would be appropriate and desirable to ban single-sex accommodations outright.
Religious universities already have wide latitude to ignore civil rights laws. Adding trans protections would likely do little to change that because private religious schools generally can ignore anti-discrimination law and be as bigoted as they please in these matters.

Nor am I much interested in protecting the right of religious institutions to practice bigotry under the name of orthodoxy. If it were up to me, these places would be found in violation of anti-discrimination laws for all their anti-gay and other bigoted policies, but it's not.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 16th September 2020 at 06:14 AM.
SuburbanTurkey 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 16th September 2020, 06:20 AM   #94
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,217
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
If you want to be taken seriously when proposing changes to the law of the land, it helps to show that you've thought through all the implications. And once again, here, you've dodged the question of whether it would be appropriate and desirable to ban single-sex living quarters outright.
There is no need to ban single-sex living quarters provided you allow trans people access to the quarters they wish to live in.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal 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 16th September 2020, 06:26 AM   #95
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,657
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
The decision narrowly applies to employment. There is no wider recognition that transgender identity is a protected class federally. It remains lawful in many states to discriminate against trans people in housing and other non-employment parts of society.
The employment vs housing situation makes sense when you think about it. We all pretty much agree that employment should be largely co-ed. And we all pretty much agree that housing, like locker rooms, can legitimately be sex-segregated.

Should a man who identifies as a woman have all the same employment opportunities as other men and/or women? Absolutely.

Should a man who identifies as a woman have access to female-only housing opportunities? Well, here we are in this thread.
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 16th September 2020, 06:30 AM   #96
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The employment vs housing situation makes sense when you think about it. We all pretty much agree that employment should be largely co-ed. And we all pretty much agree that housing, like locker rooms, can legitimately be sex-segregated.

Should a man who identifies as a woman have all the same employment opportunities as other men and/or women? Absolutely.

Should a man who identifies as a woman have access to female-only housing opportunities? Well, here we are in this thread.
My reading of damion's post seems to be that he thinks trans protections will end the practice of sex segregated communal dorms, which doesn't really make sense for me.

Trans people would be assigned to the dorms of their gender identity, which can totally remain segregated into men/women as they are now.

I agree this is just a rehash of the "locker room" dilemma that some have, but I don't see how this would end the practice of gender segregated dorms.

It's only complicated if you take the line that trans women should not be treated as women (and likewise for men/transmen), which creates a complex problem what to do with these people that have set aside as "the other" with no good place to go.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 16th September 2020 at 06:32 AM.
SuburbanTurkey 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 16th September 2020, 06:32 AM   #97
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,754
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Nor am I much interested in protecting the right of religious institutions to practice bigotry under the name of orthodoxy.
It is fair to say that the Catholic Church is bigoted as between men and women, but Catholic University isn't the only school in play here. Other institutions also have policy choices regarding dormitories; even our local state school segregates by floor.

I'm getting the sense that you'd prefer to legally prohibit single-sex living arrangements altogether, across the board, if given the chance. Is this correct?

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
My reading of damion's post seems to be that he thinks trans protections will end the practice of sex segregated communal dorms, which doesn't really make sense for me.
Can you see any difference between segregating by sex and segregating by gender?

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
There is no need to ban single-sex living quarters provided you allow trans people access to the quarters they wish to live in.
In which case, why would we call them single-sex?
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 16th September 2020 at 06:47 AM.
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 16th September 2020, 06:33 AM   #98
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
It is fair to say that the Catholic Church is bigoted as between men and women, but Catholic University isn't the only school in play here. Other institutions also have policy choices regarding dormitories; even our local state school segregates by floor.

I'm getting the sense that you'd prefer to ban single-sex living arrangements altogether, across the board, if given the chance. Is this correct?
I don't see how affirming trans gender identity in law would lead to the end of gender segregated dorms. Trans women could live in all women dorms and still exclude men. Likewise for trans men and all men dorms.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 16th September 2020 at 06:38 AM.
SuburbanTurkey 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 16th September 2020, 06:39 AM   #99
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,217
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post

Can you see a difference between segregating by sex and segregating by gender?
A semantic one, yes. A practical one, not so much.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal 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 16th September 2020, 06:39 AM   #100
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,657
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Isn't the treatment for the distress basically to treat the person of the gender that they say they identify as?

I believe that you identify as a woman and I doubt that you would a) appreciate anyone telling you that they don't agree with you b) reduce that identity to the mere presence of genitalia?

I think this reductionism potentially does women in general a disservice because if we reduce 'women' to biology then we open the door for a lot of the efforts made to help women reduce inequalities to be dismantled unless they have a biological basis. Or worse, the invention of spurious biological justifications for inequalities.

I'm sure we agree the experience of being a women is more than the experience of having female genitals and, if we do, then surely that also allows for an experience of being a woman absent female genitals? It may not be the same lived experience as you but that doesn't mean it's invalid. After all I'm sure there are all sorts of women who have all sorts of different lived experiences from you. All that is being asked is that the range of 'lived experiences of being a woman' includes transwomen.
The only person doing genital reductionism in this thread is you. So this is wrong:
"I'm sure we agree the experience of being a women is more than the experience of having female genitals and, if we do, the experience of being a women is more than the experience of having female genitals and, if we do, then surely that also allows for an experience of being a woman absent female genitals?"
The question is, do we agree the experience of being a woman is more than the experience of having the genes, the hormones, the morphology (including, yes, some substantial subset of primary and secondary physical characteristics such as genitalia), and the social gender construct built on that biological reality? And do we agree that it is possible to experience being a woman absent all of those things?

But let's back up a moment. You say the experience of being a woman is more than the experience of having female genitals. Okay, sure. I agree with that - I think. What exactly is your "more"? What else, besides genitals, do you think goes into the experience of being a woman?
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 16th September 2020, 06:42 AM   #101
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
It is fair to say that the Catholic Church is bigoted as between men and women, but Catholic University isn't the only school in play here. Other institutions also have policy choices regarding dormitories; even our local state school segregates by floor.

I'm getting the sense that you'd prefer to legally prohibit single-sex living arrangements altogether, across the board, if given the chance. Is this correct?



Can you see any difference between segregating by sex and segregating by gender?
Despite the strawmanning, this is what is meant by "Trans women are women". It's not about denying biological reality, it's a statement about practical realities. Trans women are women in the sense that they should be treated as women for all practical purposes. The difference between a trans woman and a cis man is much larger than the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman.

From the lens of social policy, gender identity is much more significant category than a strictly clinical view of sex. Trans acceptance fits fine into any rationale to divide the genders. It makes more sense to put a trans man, vagina and all, into a men's dorm rather than to make a bearded dude go live in a women's dorm.

inb4 idiotic claims about transwomen demanding hysterectomies or whatever nonsense is sure to follow.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 16th September 2020 at 06:46 AM.
SuburbanTurkey 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 16th September 2020, 06:49 AM   #102
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 7,217
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The only person doing genital reductionism in this thread is you. So this is wrong:
"I'm sure we agree the experience of being a women is more than the experience of having female genitals and, if we do, the experience of being a women is more than the experience of having female genitals and, if we do, then surely that also allows for an experience of being a woman absent female genitals?"
The question is, do we agree the experience of being a woman is more than the experience of having the genes, the hormones, the morphology (including, yes, some substantial subset of primary and secondary physical characteristics such as genitalia), and the social gender construct built on that biological reality? And do we agree that it is possible to experience being a woman absent all of those things?

But let's back up a moment. You say the experience of being a woman is more than the experience of having female genitals. Okay, sure. I agree with that - I think. What exactly is your "more"? What else, besides genitals, do you think goes into the experience of being a woman?
Sorry, which bit is wrong? The bit you go on to agree with?

But yes indeed. Let's back up a moment. To answer your question, if you want a genuine answer I would think it's better to ask someone who can give you a more studied answer than me. However if you would like my opinion then it would seem that the more is going to be quite a complex mix of things, a lot of being how you are treated by other people based on assumptions they make about you. And it's going to be a range of experiences because it's going to be different to be a black woman than to be a white woman, to be a beautiful woman vs an ordinary looking woman, to be a disabled woman vs an able-bodied woman and to be a transwoman vs a ciswoman or even to be a transman for that matter.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal 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 16th September 2020, 06:55 AM   #103
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,754
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I don't see how affirming trans gender identity in law would lead to the end of gender segregated dorms.
Again, I'd say there is a significant difference between segregation by sex and by gender. Indeed, that difference is at the crux of several arguments in these threads.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
From the lens of social policy, gender identity is much more significant category than a strictly clinical view of sex. Trans acceptance fits fine into any rationale to divide the genders. It makes more sense to put a trans man, vagina and all, into a men's dorm rather than to make a bearded dude go live in a women's dorm.
I agree with all of this, but my question to you was not whether we should advocate for this policy to be voluntarily adopted but whether it should be legally mandatory for all institutions.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 16th September 2020 at 06:57 AM.
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 16th September 2020, 06:57 AM   #104
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Again, I'd say there is a significant difference between segregation by sex and by gender. Indeed, that difference is at the crux of several arguments in these threads.
Ok. Civil rights protections for trans people might mean the end of sex segregated dorms as you define it, but not mean the end of gender segregated dorms, which would be nearly identical to the previous practice except accommodating trans people. Women's shelters, dorms, and other spaces would remain essentially the same.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey 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 16th September 2020, 07:05 AM   #105
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,233
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Can we agree that there are relatively objective ways of objectively measuring sexual excitement in (gay) men?
There is not, one can feel "sexually excited" with a penile plethismograph showing nothing, and the thing showing huge response without a person feeling sexually excited. It is about as reliable as using a polygraph to see whether you are lying, which is also pseudoscience.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn 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 16th September 2020, 07:14 AM   #106
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Again, I'd say there is a significant difference between segregation by sex and by gender. Indeed, that difference is at the crux of several arguments in these threads.



I agree with all of this, but my question to you was not whether we should advocate for this policy to be voluntarily adopted but whether it should be legally mandatory for all institutions.

Generally speaking, civil right protections are compulsory, except when exceptions are carved out for religious and other such institutions.

If it's not mandatory, it's not a protected civil right.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey 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 16th September 2020, 07:20 AM   #107
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,754
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Despite the strawmanning, this is what is meant by "Trans women are women". It's not about denying biological reality, it's a statement about practical realities. Trans women are women in the sense that they should be treated as women for all practical purposes.
This sounds like a moral claim (about shared values and desired outcomes) rather than the sort of claim that can be evaluated using the usual skeptical toolbox.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2020, 07:22 AM   #108
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,754
Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
There is not, one can feel "sexually excited" with a penile plethismograph showing nothing, and the thing showing huge response without a person feeling sexually excited. It is about as reliable as using a polygraph to see whether you are lying, which is also pseudoscience.
Where are you getting your reliability data?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2020, 07:25 AM   #109
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
This sounds like a moral claim (about shared values and desired outcomes) rather than the sort of claim that can be evaluated using the usual skeptical toolbox.
As are most social issues. There's no skeptical answer to whether sodomy should be illegal or whether gay people should be imprisoned.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey 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 16th September 2020, 07:27 AM   #110
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,754
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Women's shelters, dorms, and other spaces would remain essentially the same.
I'm not a woman and have no need of these spaces, but at least some of the (cis) women in this thread would surely disagree.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2020, 07:28 AM   #111
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I'm not a woman and have no need of these spaces, but at least some of the (cis) women in this thread would surely disagree.
Yes, and they aren't shy about white knighting for the entire female gender, despite indications that their positions are not widely held by those they purport to speak for.

Sucks that bigots are uncomfortable around trans women. That's not a good reason to not protect a vulnerable population.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey 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 16th September 2020, 07:30 AM   #112
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
This sounds like a moral claim (about shared values and desired outcomes) rather than the sort of claim that can be evaluated using the usual skeptical toolbox.
Motte & Bailey. Make a far-going claim of fact ("transwomen are women") and then, when challenged, retreat into a much weaker moral claim ("transwomen should be treated as women for all practical purposes").
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2020, 07:31 AM   #113
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Motte & Bailey. Make a far-going claim of fact ("transwomen are women") and then, when challenged, retreat into a much weaker moral claim ("transwomen should be treated as women for all practical purposes").
Thrash that strawman. Sure, you can nutpick somebody who claims that transwomen are identical to cis women in every literal way, but it ain't me baby.

Whole lot of nutpicking going on in this thread. Seems that finding jerks on twitter saying stupid things counts as skeptical evidence on these forums.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey 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 16th September 2020, 07:34 AM   #114
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,657
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
My reading of damion's post seems to be that he thinks trans protections will end the practice of sex segregated communal dorms, which doesn't really make sense for me.
Yes, because you're conflating sex and gender to confuse the issue:

Quote:
Trans people would be assigned to the dorms of their gender identity, which can totally remain segregated into men/women as they are now.
Quote:
I agree this is just a rehash of the "locker room" dilemma that some have, but I don't see how this would end the practice of gender segregated dorms.
It would end the practice of sex-segregated dorms, which is the problem we're debating and you're dodging.

Quote:
It's only complicated if you take the line that trans women should not be treated as women (and likewise for men/transmen), which creates a complex problem what to do with these people that have set aside as "the other" with no good place to go.
Simplifying the problem by saying it doesn't exist isn't a solution for the people who see the problem as very much existing.
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 16th September 2020, 07:36 AM   #115
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Yes, because you're conflating sex and gender to confuse the issue:




It would end the practice of sex-segregated dorms, which is the problem we're debating and you're dodging.


Simplifying the problem by saying it doesn't exist isn't a solution for the people who see the problem as very much existing.
I concede it would end sex segregation, which could be replaced by gender segregation. This would satisfy the rationale for the segregation to begin with. My point is that, for all practical purposes, gender segregation that is trans-inclusive is a drop-in replacement that satisfies all the needs of current sex-segregation, and has the added benefit of protecting the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group.

Apologies that I've been a bit sloppy with semantics, which I acknowledge is important in such discussions. I'll try to be clearer going forward.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 16th September 2020 at 07:37 AM.
SuburbanTurkey 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 16th September 2020, 07:37 AM   #116
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,657
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Thrash that strawman. Sure, you can nutpick somebody who claims that transwomen are identical to cis women in every literal way, but it ain't me baby.

Whole lot of nutpicking going on in this thread. Seems that finding jerks on twitter saying stupid things counts as skeptical evidence on these forums.
It sounds like your position is that transwomen are men, but should be treated as women where practical to do so. And the rest of the debate is about what we can agree is practical.
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 16th September 2020, 07:37 AM   #117
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,233
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
A few questions for everyone and anyone:

1) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by gender? If so, what and why? If not, why not?

2) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by sex? If so, what and why? If not, why not?
No.

That's because segregation is always problematic. No matter what categories of people you think up -- {black;white}, {hutu;tutsi}, {man;woman} -- or how many categories you think up -- {catholic;protestant;jew} -- there will always be people who don't fall neatly into the any of the categories and will feel confusion over which service they should use, or not have a service available to them. Also, no matter how "equal" you think you make the "separate but equal" service, there will always be people from one or more of the categories who feel they got the worst service, and often they're not wrong.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn 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 16th September 2020, 07:38 AM   #118
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I have been asking for decades what the point of gender reassignment surgery is, sometimes losing trans friends over the question.

Perhaps we should start to regard it as an outdated response.
As best as I can tell it's the following. We live in a society were the two sexes are expected (and socially reinforced) to behave differently. Some people internalize this to the extent that they develop something called a gender identity. In some of those people that gender identity does not map to their sex, so they want society to reinforce the behaviours expected of the other sex. For this reason they change their appearance and behaviours so as to cause people to reinforce the behaviours expected of the other sex.
__________________
"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; 16th September 2020 at 08:07 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2020, 07:38 AM   #119
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It sounds like your position is that transwomen are men, but should be treated as women where practical to do so. And the rest of the debate is about what we can agree is practical.
I'm sorry you misinterpret me so badly. Perhaps it's my fault you came to such a poor conclusion.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey 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 16th September 2020, 07:52 AM   #120
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,533
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Thrash that strawman. Sure, you can nutpick somebody who claims that transwomen are identical to cis women in every literal way, but it ain't me baby.
Not only is "transwomen are women" not equivalent to "transwomen are identical to cis women in every literal way", making your response a strawman (gotta love the irony), but "transwomen are women" is not a strawman, it's a literal position taken by many, including yourself.

Quote:
Seems that finding jerks on twitter saying stupid things counts as skeptical evidence on these forums.
Depends on the claim it's used in evidence of, just like anything else.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.