"Her penis" - not at all Orwellian - argh

[icehorse]

Now that's better.
One oft cited problem is trans women
disrupting TERF meetings. This is an
imagined problem.

Not a scenario I've discussed. But what I HAVE discussed is trans activists disrupting various lesbian meetings.

That said, how do you conclude it's an imagined problem?

 

[icehorse]

He explains how and why sex isn't binary, among other common misconceptions.

well he should not start off by making several logical errors in the first minute

 

[Revoltingest]

Not a scenario I've discussed.

I recall otherwise.

But what I HAVE discussed is trans activists disrupting various lesbian meetings.

There ya go!

That said, how do you conclude it's an imagined problem?

Because it's insignificant.

 

[icehorse]

I am not entertaining sealioning, horse. Figure it out.

Communication is a two way endeavor.

You appear to think that you can use claims of "sealioning" to avoid having to clarify yourself. If you are unwilling to clarify your posts, I'm happy to know it, and I won't waste any more time responding to you.

 

[icehorse]

You've yet to show it's a major problem that women are facing.

I have a lot of evidence that providing you with citations is a waste of time. Because you do not read / watch the links I provide. OTOH, defenders of GAC have given me many links, and I have taken the time to read them. As for the video you just posted, I acted in good faith and started to watch it. I stopped because it was loaded with bad logic. Provide another link and I'll look at it.

Will you do the same?

 

[icehorse]

Because it's insignificant.

I know our kilted friend will be upset but I don't care:

How do you know the problem is insignificant? In general, how do you prove that a thing is not happening?

It seems to me that the truth is you're not aware of it, and so somehow in your mind that means it must not be happening?

 

[Alien826]

I continue to appreciate your thoughtfulness!

Thank you.

To oversimplify a bit, in the old days, most trans women wanted to look like women, to fit in. That's still true, sometimes. But these days a lot of trans women make no efforts to look like women, and some state their explicit goal is to shock people. E.g. men in dresses with full beards. It's called gender f#@k. (if you search for it, be prepared)

This sounds a bit like people in "gay pride" events who dress in the most outlandish way to get attention. I doubt that it's more than a minority in both cases, but I lack and specific knowledge. It's saying something like "OK, you think I'm weird when I behave normally, so how about this!" I just looked it up (and don't worry I pretty much unshockable about sexual matters if they don't include things that would be wrong in other contexts). From a brief perusal, it seems I could be right that it's a kind of "lunatic fringe" thing.

As for the "halfway being", hmmm. There are countless mental conditions. If someone has ADHD, or PTSD, or autism, or... we say so. Transgenderism is a mental condition. It doesn't diminish the seriousness of it to say so.

If you had viewed the entire video that you say you just viewed one minute of, you'd see that it's a lot more than mental. Incidentally, I do recommend you view it all.

Here's a video. It's meant to be funny, but it's also a bit cautionary concerning some of the unexpected, problematic consequences of trying to warp reality via pronouns:

Yes, funny. It reminds me of some of the things from the early days of feminism, like "personhole covers". It's true that there are circumstances where a strictly accurate description of a person's appearance is appropriate. Those exceptions are peripheral to the arguments in this thread though, surely?

I'll add something that may be of interest. I find that the lack of male/female identification on RF makes me uncomfortable sometimes. I've examined my feelings and have concluded that it's because I was brought up to treat men and women differently. I'm still not sure whether I should get used to the new ways or expect others to recognize that I'm an old dog that doesn't learn new tricks easily.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

How do you know the problem is insignificant? In general, how do you prove that a thing is not happening?

In absence of solid evidence, one might have to make a judgement call - but in such a case, I would hope they carefully weigh the source of the claims.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Communication is a two way endeavor.

Yes, communication (or rather Discussion) is a two-way endeavor. However your lack of comprehension for terms that are both quite self-evident and common to discussions revolving around this general topic is not my problem nor my responsibility.

Let me be clear here; I'm not going to tie myself into knots reiterating and restating something that you've quoted without addressing thrice now. I'm not going to break my back over-defining a simple and common term because you either can't be bothered to self-educate or (from experience the more likely) want to confound and muddle the discussion with meaningless process and then act like I'm being the unreasonable one - the very definition of sealioning.

If this is your paltry smokescreen to try and Batman from this discourse then so be it, but don't think I'm just going to disappear myself.

 

[icehorse]

In absence of solid evidence, one might have to make a judgement call - but in such a case, I would hope they carefully weigh the source of the claims.

Mostly agreed.

But I'll get back to looking for numerous factual, falsifiable claims. Because for a politically charged topic like this, it's hard to find neutral sources. So the best I think we can do is look for lots of factual claims.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, communication (or rather Discussion) is a two-way endeavor. However your lack of comprehension for terms that are both quite self-evident and common to discussions revolving around this general topic is not my problem nor my responsibility.

Let me be clear here; I'm not going to tie myself into knots reiterating and restating something that you've quoted without addressing thrice now. I'm not going to break my back over-defining a simple and common term because you either can't be bothered to self-educate or (from experience the more likely) want to confound and muddle the discussion with meaningless process and then act like I'm being the unreasonable one - the very definition of sealioning.

If this is your paltry smokescreen to try and Batman from this discourse then so be it, but don't think I'm just going to disappear myself.

When a poster asks me to clarify a post, I do so. No big deal.

If you can't be asked, I question your motives

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Mostly agreed.

But I'll get back to looking for numerous factual, falsifiable claims. Because for a politically charged topic like this, it's hard to find neutral sources. So the best I think we can do is look for lots of factual claims.

Facts are one thing. Falsifiability is important too. But that info should also be verifiable in addition to being falsifiable. Or else, we're back to critiquing the source.

 

[Alien826]

well he should not start off by making several logical errors in the first minute

I watched the video (which I thought was excellent, btw) with your earlier comment to this effect in mind. I didn't spot any logical errors in the first minute, so could you please enumerate them and explain why you think they are errors? It shouldn't take long if it's just the first minute. You have me puzzled, so please indulge me.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

When a poster asks me to clarify a post, I do so. No big deal.

If you can't be asked, I question your motives

Likewise, when you ask me to "clarify" something that is a common term before you provide any valid justifications for your bigotry well... That shows the motive full display.

You're not finding more egalitarian solutions to trans issues and challenges. You're not protecting "women". You're dehumanizing and categorizing people based on very poor reasoning.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok...

first, please summarize this 30 minute video.

second - i watched the first minute and he made several illogical arguments.

Now, go read the article from the Finnish doctor.

No he didn't.

I posted this video for you because you seem to need a crash course on why and how sex isn't the binary thing you seem to think it is by discussing biological sex in the animal kingdom.
Plus, he explains the differences between sex and gender.
He's a biologist and an excellent science communicator.
He makes these video for people like yourself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have a lot of evidence that providing you with citations is a waste of time. Because you do not read / watch the links I provide. OTOH, defenders of GAC have given me many links, and I have taken the time to read them. As for the video you just posted, I acted in good faith and started to watch it. I stopped because it was loaded with bad logic. Provide another link and I'll look at it.

Will you do the same?

Excuses, excuses.

I've read many links you've provided and discussed and rebutted many of them with you.

There are zero logical errors even within the first ten minutes of the video. But if you think there are, please share them with me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know our kilted friend will be upset but I don't care:

How do you know the problem is insignificant? In general, how do you prove that a thing is not happening?

It seems to me that the truth is you're not aware of it, and so somehow in your mind that means it must not be happening?

When have you ever demonstrated that it IS a significant problem????
That's your assertion, yes?

 

[icehorse]

ZERO logical errors were made in the first minute.

Okay, I listened to 18:00 minutes, and I made a list of 19 issues with the presentation. Some strawmen, many distinctions without a difference, many hasty generalizations, gish gallops, several conflations, and at least one instance of non-scientific, agenda-driven language.

A few (rough) timestamp examples:

:30 he strawmans thoughtful disagreements about gender stereotypes
:33 same with gender
:51 he talks about a "two gender system" - another strawman

Jumping ahead at around 17:30 or so he says:

"Gender is how an individual organism expresses their sexual identity in a cultural context".

Even by his own standards, that's inconsistent with other things he's said and it's inconsistent with what thoughtful people understand about gender. For example, a girl who expresses a lot of masculine traits, i.e. a "tomboy" is in NO WAY expressing her sexual identity when she climbs a tree.

==

Now, how about you spending half the time reading the link I gave you?

 

[icehorse]

I've read many links you've provided and discussed and rebutted many of them with you.

Tell me one thing about the interview with the Finnish doctor.

 

[LadyJane]

Don't worry, I have a thick skin

No you don’t. If you did you’d be able to face disagreement without questioning whether a poster is "arguing in good faith" while mawkishly thanking those who agree for their "thoughtful posts." That's the zero sum game yer playing. With you at the centre. Feigning civility til the levee breaks.

Repeating the same five things on (at least) three internet discussion forums over the past ten years doesn’t make them true. Idealizing the notion of universal morality (parroting Sam Harris) only to panic over pronouns (parroting Jordan Peterson) stands in the way of the alternative option of forming your own opinion. Like the critical thinker you keep telling everyone you are (while parroting former patrons).

One minute finds you insisting we all share the same values and the next referring to fellow posters as “opponents” and “detractors" in yet another manufactroversy where you can play both the victim and the hero. You used to call yourself an activist. That was about as accurate as all the links you post that never hold the facts you claim they do. Now you paint activists as a “woke cohort” here to destroy freedom of speech and usher in a dystopian future.

(This is where you say "your mind reading skills aren't very good” with the embarrassingly frequent use of jazz hands.)

You’re still chasing phantoms, icehorse. One thread fails you simply start another. Next thing you know it’s fifty pages of crushed asphalt on the same road to nowhere. Patrons offer insight but you keep the blinders on. Arriving at the conclusion prematurely isn’t the problem. Refusing to budge after you realize the error made in haste is the problem. Forever insisting the big scary thing that never happens merely hasn’t happened “yet.”

The consistency with which you’ve been labelled a bigot is no great mystery. It’s a reflection of the consistency of your intolerance.

If yer gonna nail one foot to the floor...don’t get upset when people run circles around you.