Gender reassignment/affirming surgery

[McBell]

dig in and double down, I just cannot spend any more time dealing with your false accusations, have a fine day

What "false accusation"?

 

[icehorse]

I see.

Well, I apparently have a much higher standard than you.

But since you are going to flat refuse to support your claim, even though "they are easily verifiable", no reason to take you seriously.

The side effect of that being that you are implicitly supporting bad men abusing women.

Given that, I see no reason to take you seriously.

 

[icehorse]

What "false accusation"?

i wasn't talking to you, doh!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The side effect of that being that you are implicitly supporting bad men abusing women.

Given that, I see no reason to take you seriously.

How do you know with evidence if a person is bad? What branch of biology do you use?
Can you test as be able to be falsified what you claim?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

i wasn't talking to you, doh!

Yes, that was bad, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

dig in and double down, I just cannot spend any more time dealing with your false accusations, have a fine day

You've demonstrated my "accusation" to be accurate.
I asked you to dig into one of your examples with me.

This is the result.

Please remember this the next time you bring up those examples.

 

[McBell]

i wasn't talking to you, doh!

Let me try this with crayons...

Okay, so let's get this straight. I asked you a question about one of the examples you've provided.
You refuse to clarify. You refuse to explain what's being said.
And that's supposed to be my failing?

Mmkay. Next time you beg someone to address your examples, remember this conversation.

I'm trying to address one with you and you've refused.

It's much different than citing a poll, in which many members participated and gave their input.

You've "cited" one person's tweet. And I can't even get you to address one single example from that tweet.

dig in and double down, I just cannot spend any more time dealing with your false accusations, have a fine day

What "false accusation"?

i wasn't talking to you, doh!

What false accusation has @SkepticThinker made?

 

[McBell]

The side effect of that being that you are implicitly supporting bad men abusing women.

Another bold empty claim you will flat out refuse to support?

Given that, I see no reason to take you seriously.

I am not the one claiming that support is "easily verified" and then instead of verifying it running away tail tucked.

 

[icehorse]

Another bold empty claim you will flat out refuse to support?


I am not the one claiming that support is "easily verified" and then instead of verifying it running away tail tucked.

It is not my job to educate you. I provided 11 examples.

If I was to give you citations for a clinical research paper would you demand that I verify that paper?

You seem to be making unreasonable demands as a tactic to derail the conversation.

 

[icehorse]

@SkepticThinker , @McBell , @mikkel_the_dane

Until we return to a reasonable conversation, I will leave the three of you with this:

Laws that have attempted to allow for "gender self identification" are being used by bad men to abuse women. This much should just be common sense.

Why are you so desperate to make it easy for bad men to abuse women?

 

[McBell]

It is not my job to educate you. I provided 11 examples.

If I was to give you citations for a clinical research paper would you demand that I verify that paper?

You seem to be making unreasonable demands as a tactic to derail the conversation.

You did not present a clinical research paper.
You presented a tweet with a Gish Gallop of claims.
You then claimed that you can "easily verify" the claims of the tweet.
Then you flat out refused to verify any of the claims in the tweet.
Even when it was asked to support just one of your claimants claims.

now you think that asking you to "easily verify" the Gish Gallop of claims in your own source is a tactic to derail the thread.

So it is clear to anyone paying attention that it is not me who needs some education here.

 

[icehorse]

You did not present a clinical research paper.

You presented a tweet with a Gish Gallop of claims.

We weren't discussing clinical research. I claimed that bad men were taking advantage of poorly written laws to hurt women and girls. When asked for proof I provided a list of 10 + 1 examples. This is NOT a gish gallop. It was clear that after I provided the first example, your cohort wanted to see more examples. So I provided 10 more examples of specific bad men doing specific bad things to women and girls.

You then claimed that you can "easily verify" the claims of the tweet.
Then you flat out refused to verify any of the claims in the tweet.
Even when it was asked to support just one of your claimants claims.

You and your cohort are not the bosses of RF You asked for examples, I gave you examples.

You and your cohort do not somehow have the last word on how much work other posters have to do to defend their claims. If you care about women and girls you now have a list names and incidents that you can use to verify that this is indeed a problem.

Or you can choose to remain in denial.

 

[McBell]

We weren't discussing clinical research.

YOU were the one who brought up clinical research.
I merely replied to it.

I claimed that bad men were taking advantage of poorly written laws to hurt women and girls. When asked for proof I provided a list of 10 + 1 examples. This is NOT a gish gallop. It was clear that after I provided the first example, your cohort wanted to see more examples. So I provided 10 more examples of specific bad men doing specific bad things to women and girls.

You provided a tweet that contained a gish gallop of claims, not a one of which was verified by your source.
You then claimed that you could "easily verify" them.
you have as yet to verify a single one of them.

it seems you are going to great lengths to get out of verifying them.
Easily or otherwise...

You and your cohort are not the bosses of RF You asked for examples, I gave you examples.

You and your cohort do not somehow have the last word on how much work other posters have to do to defend their claims. If you care about women and girls you now have a list names and incidents that you can use to verify that this is indeed a problem.

Or you can choose to remain in denial.

This emotional rant is not relevant to the thread topic or the tangent at hand.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@SkepticThinker , @McBell , @mikkel_the_dane

Until we return to a reasonable conversation, I will leave the three of you with this:

Laws that have attempted to allow for "gender self identification" are being used by bad men to abuse women. This much should just be common sense.

Why are you so desperate to make it easy for bad men to abuse women?

There is more, but you in at least one of these threads demand in effect evidence in some cases, but not others.
In effect there is no evidence for bad men, since it is a feeling that there are bad men.

So as long as you use a double standard and can't in effect admit that one of the neccesary but not suffiencent elements is feelings, we won't get any further.
You accept your feelings and deny other feelings.

 

[icehorse]

You provided a tweet that contained a gish gallop of claims, not a one of which was verified by your source.

@mikkel_the_dane

Did you open the link, scroll to the top, and read the entire thread?

I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing here. Did you read about Isla Bryson? Or Katie Dolatowski? Or Samantha Norris who exposed "her" penis to two 11 year old girls? And so on.

Did you read the link I provided?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@mikkel_the_dane

Did you open the link, scroll to the top, and read the entire thread?

I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing here. Did you read about Isla Bryson? Or Katie Dolatowski? Or Samantha Norris who exposed "her" penis to two 11 year old girls? And so on.

Did you read the link I provided?

Here is a fact about the world. It is the is ought problem. Look it up.
In short: There are bad men as how they hurt other people in regards to some laws pertaining to gender, therefore ...
The problem is that not follows from that fact as such about what should actually be done.
And then there is the problem that it is not true that there are bad men. That is a feeling.

 

[icehorse]

Here is a fact about the world. It is the is ought problem. Look it up.
In short: There are bad men as how they hurt other people in regards to some laws pertaining to gender, therefore ...
The problem is that not follows from that fact as such about what should actually be done.
And then there is the problem that it is not true that there are bad men. That is a feeling.

It's starting to sound like you're a moral relativist. Is that the case?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's starting to sound like you're a moral relativist. Is that the case?

Yes, I am.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@SkepticThinker , @McBell , @mikkel_the_dane

Until we return to a reasonable conversation, I will leave the three of you with this:

Laws that have attempted to allow for "gender self identification" are being used by bad men to abuse women. This much should just be common sense.

Why are you so desperate to make it easy for bad men to abuse women?

Is this really how you want to try to wiggle out of our conversation where we're examining just one of your examples that you keep citing? You're now going to accuse a woman of "desperately" trying to make it easier for bad men to abuse me? Like, for real?

Let me know when you're able to address the "examples" that you think demonstrate how harmful this all supposedly is to women, that you keep demanding that others look into. Until that happens, I don't think you get to claim that you've made your case that transgender stuff helps "bad men abuse women."

 

[icehorse]

Yes, I am.

Ah, that makes sense.

Nothing personal, but the only time I'm interested in debating with a moral relativist is in the philosophy forum. So in all other forums, if you respond to me from a relativist perspective, I will not engage. Again, nothing personal, thanks.